logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.04.14 2016나2056128
중재판정취소의 소
Text

1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

Reasons

The reasoning for the court's explanation of this case is as follows, except for the part "(i) concerning the plaintiff's first argument of the court of first instance 3 through 6th, 7th, of the judgment of the court of first instance" is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part shall be quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. 【The part to be used after dismissal’s conclusion of a contract with a large number of other parties. ] In a case where one party to a contract prepared a contract in advance in a certain form to enter into a contract with a certain other party and entered into a contract by presenting it to that other party, if the other party has an opportunity to adjust his/her own interest by means of an individual negotiation (or negotiation) as to a specific provision between the other party and the other party, such a specific provision

In order to establish the existence of an individual negotiation, even though the result of the negotiation does not necessarily appear in the form of changing the content of a specific clause, it is necessary to make changes in the content by exercising influence after sufficiently reviewing and considering the relevant specific clause on an equal basis with almost equal status between the parties, rather than bound by the content of the contract prepared in advance by the other party.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da105383 Decided September 9, 2010). (b) It is not sufficient to recognize that the content of the instant contract was a pre-term contract prepared by the Defendant in a certain form in order to enter into a contract with a large number of other parties, and there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Rather, in full view of the above evidence and evidence Nos. 2 and 3, the overall purport of the pleadings, the instant contract is led by the Energy Management Corporation.

arrow