beta
Text
The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The judgment of the first instance.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing this case is as follows, and except for the following additional determination, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this is accepted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
In accordance with the Defendant’s assertion, the Plaintiff filed the instant conjunctive claim on the premise that the instant contract is null and void. However, the Defendant’s assertion that “the instant contract cannot be deemed null and void as it is an instrument unfair and biased contract” is merely an assertion to the effect that the Defendant is not liable for damages under the instant contract against the Plaintiff. Moreover, the statement that “the instant contract is null and void” is a statement that recognizes the legal relationship or legal effect, which is the premise of the subject matter of a lawsuit, and thus does not bind the court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da87061, Mar. 27, 2008). Furthermore, the evidence alone presented by the Plaintiff is insufficient to acknowledge that the instant contract falls under a juristic act significantly lose fairness due to the party’s illness, rashness or experience, or violates the mandatory provisions of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act and other terms and conditions, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion that this part of the contract is invalid.”
2. The Plaintiff asserts that, even if the instant contract is not null and void, it is necessary to settle accounts in relation to the Defendant.
As seen earlier, as long as it is difficult to deem the contract of this case null and void, the Defendant is disputing the validity of the contract of this case.
The mere fact that the transaction under the instant contract is discontinued is between the parties.