[1] The case affirming the judgment of the court below which held that since the operation policy of the "Lage I" Internet game, which is a multi-user online roll-to-user online roll-to-face game, was a lawful part of the terms and conditions of the game, and the game enterpriser individually notified the contents of the operation policy by the method of holding the user consent at the screen when the user uses the game, the users should be deemed to have consented to the terms and conditions of the game incorporated by the operation policy

[2] The case affirming the judgment of the court below which held that where an Internet game user, "Lage I", a multi-user online roll-on game, was ordered to permanently suspend the use of three or more accounts using prohibited software, such as automatic match programs, the provisions of the above game terms and conditions and operation policies which allow the user to terminate the service contract on all accounts owned by the user, cannot be deemed as an unfair terms and conditions under the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act

[1] The case affirming the judgment of the court below that since the business operator providing Internet game service for multi-user online roll-oriented game (MORPG), which is a multi-user online game, provided part of the terms and conditions of the game terms and conditions of the game and the terms and conditions of the integrated service, and provided separate operation policies for the game operation under the terms and conditions of the game and the integrated service, and the operation policies were legally part of the terms and conditions, and since the above business operator individually notified the contents of the operation policies by the method that the user's consent is kept at the screen at the time of the use of the game, the above game users should be deemed to have consented to the terms and conditions of the game of this case, the operation policies should be deemed to have been part of the terms and conditions of the game of this case incorporated

[2] The case affirming the judgment of the court below holding that in case where Internet game service users of multi-user online roll-oriented game (MMRPG): Internet game service users are subject to permanent suspension of use of three or more accounts by using prohibited software such as automatic match program, etc., the provisions of the above game terms and conditions and operation policies which allow users to terminate a contract for all accounts owned by them to the extent that the purpose of the contract can not be achieved, or the provision which limits essential rights of the contract to the extent that the purpose of the contract can not be achieved, or the business operators can unilaterally suspend performance without any justifiable reason, or the provisions which provide for the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions, such as the right to cancel, or the right to cancel, under the provisions of Acts and subordinate statutes that allow customers to suffer undue disadvantage by relaxing the requirements for exercise of the right to cancel the contract, which are unfair terms and conditions of the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions, and the degree of violation is too harsh compared to the degree of violation, and thus, it cannot be viewed as violation of the principle of proportionality.

[1] Article 105 of the Civil Code, Articles 2 and 3 of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act / [2] Articles 6(1)3, 9 subparag. 2, and 10 subparag. 2 of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act

Plaintiff (Attorney Park Jin-sik, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

UN CFT Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Gyeongsung, Attorneys Masung-si et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2009Na21227 decided December 17, 2009

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the defendant provides Internet game service Ⅰ (hereinafter referred to as "the game of this case"), which is one of the 6-line users' obligations to take measures against the above-mentioned users' online roll 1, and if the defendant violated the above-mentioned online roll 1, the defendant's management measures against the above-mentioned users' online roll 6-line game service. The defendant's act of using the game of this case is likely to violate the above-mentioned user's 7-line game service's operation restrictions on the above-mentioned user's online roll 1, and the defendant's act of using the game of this case's automatic game service 5-line user's operation restrictions on the above-mentioned user's online roll 1, 7-line game service's operation restrictions on the above-mentioned user's online 1, 7-line game service's operation restrictions on the above-mentioned user's online game service. It is also prohibited by the defendant's act of using the game of this case.

The lower court determined that, based on such fact-finding, the Plaintiffs agreed to the terms and conditions of the game of this case to which the operating policy was incorporated on the ground that the Defendant prescribed the operation policy as a part of the terms and conditions of the game of this case and the integrated service contract of this case and publicly notified the operation policy separately, the operation policy was a lawful part of the terms and conditions, and the Plaintiffs can be viewed as having consented to the terms and conditions of the game of this case for which the operation policy was incorporated, on the ground that the Defendant individually notified the contents of the operation policy by the method of holding

In light of the records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are justified.

As alleged in the ground of appeal, the court below did not err by violating the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act and misunderstanding the legal principles as to the notice of terms and conditions, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence as it violated logical and empirical rules in selecting related evidence and recognizing facts.

The ground of appeal on this part is without merit.

2. As to the third ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that even if Article 14 subparag. 10, Article 17, Article 18, and Article 4(1) and Article 13 of the Game Terms and Conditions of this case provide that if a user who uses prohibited software, such as automatic hunting programs, has been suspended from using not less than three accounts permanently, the user can terminate the service contract of this case as long as it is difficult to evaluate that it does not conform with legitimate interests and reasonable expectations of the game user of this case, so long as it is difficult to evaluate that the above provision does not conform to the above provision's legitimate rights and interests (Article 6(1) subparag. 3 of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act) or that the above provision's provision's provision which limits essential rights to the extent that the purpose of the contract can not be achieved, or that the business operator can unilaterally suspend the payment which the business operator should fulfill without any justifiable reason (Article 10 subparag. 2 of the same Act) or the provision which unreasonably alleviated the requirements for the right to cancel, it cannot be viewed as an unfair violation of law.

The court below's taking into account circumstances in determining as above is against the normal operation of the game of this case and the protection of users, such as where the automatic match program does not order users to automatically operate Mas or kis, choice of attack methods, taking water in accordance with the physical strength index, etc., which can continuously do so for 24 hours a day, and it goes against the original system of the game of this case, which is affected by users' net judgment and manipulation, harming other normal users' interest, and harming the game of this case. Thus, the degree of illegality is heavy, and the users using the automatic match program are not for enjoying the game of this case, but for the purpose of collecting many items within a short time, and the use of automatic match program can be used for the purpose of preventing the use of the program of this case, and if the program of this case is continuously used by the defendant's new account, it can only be regulated by the defendant's new account to prevent the use of the program of this case.

In addition, the interpretation of Article 2(1) of the Game Terms and Conditions of this case applies only to the case where the user consents, and accordingly, it can be sufficiently known or known that the user who has agreed to the terms and conditions of the game of this case would be subject to any sanction against any act, and the defendant's measures to terminate the service contract with respect to all accounts of the user are taken when three or more accounts are subject to sanctions, and they are conducted under a relatively strict requirement. In addition, even if sufficient warnings have been given through the first and second sanctions, it is difficult to view that the above determination by the court below is justifiable in light of the following: (a) the defendant's measures to terminate the service contract for all accounts of the user are taken when three or more accounts are subject to sanctions; and (b) the defendant has continued to commit a violation or at the same time, even if sufficient warnings have already been given through the first and second sanctions, it is against

The judgment of the court below is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to unfair control or proportionality under the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

This part of the grounds of appeal is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yang Chang-soo (Presiding Justice)