[1] The principle of interpretation of a standardized contract

[2] In a case where the specific and direct judgment on the matters alleged by the parties is not indicated in the reasoning of the judgment, but it does not affect the conclusion of the judgment, whether there is an error of omission of judgment (negative)

[3] Where the terms and conditions of golf membership use agreement entered into with Eul corporation, "the remaining amount shall be refunded after deducting the penalty of 10% of the total amount at the time of application for the termination of golf membership agreement, service charges, and service completion fees according to the period during which the service was provided," the case rejecting Eul's assertion that the service usage fees should be deducted from the total amount as profits from the use of the golf course as members, on the ground that Gap's termination is subject to the provisions such as penalty for early termination under the above terms and conditions, and there is no provision on the concept of the contract and the method of calculating the terms and conditions, etc., in the case of "service usage fees"

[1] Article 5 of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act / [2] Articles 208 and 423 of the Civil Procedure Act / [3] Article 5 of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2005Da35226 Decided October 28, 2005 (Gong2005Ha, 1862), Supreme Court Decision 2009Da79644 Decided August 25, 201 (Gong201Ha, 1920) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 2002Da56116 Decided December 26, 2002 (Gong2003Sang, 488)

Newdong Golf Co., Ltd. (Law Firm CM, Attorneys Lee Won-hun et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Defendant Counterclaim (Attorney Full-time, Counsel for defendant-Counterclaim)

Suwon District Court Decision 2014Na36457, 2014Na36464 decided December 3, 2015

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant).

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

The term "recurring transaction" prescribed by the Door-to-Door Sales, etc. Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Door-to-Door Sales Act") means a transaction with an agreement on the restriction on the refund of a price or the penalty if the contract for the provision of goods, etc. is terminated in the middle of one month or more continuously or on an irregular basis (Article 2 subparagraph 10), and a consumer who has entered into a contract for recurring transactions, etc. with a continuous transaction business operator, etc. may terminate the contract at any time during the contract period, except as otherwise provided for in other Acts or Presidential Decree

For the same purport, the lower court’s determination on the same purport is justifiable in that the instant contract constitutes continuous transaction with an agreement for penalty for early termination under the Door-to-Door Sales Act, and thus, the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”) may terminate the contract at any time during the contract period. Therefore, the instant contract was lawfully terminated by reaching the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) on June 20, 2014, which included the Defendant’s expression of intent to terminate the contract. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on continuous transaction under the Door-to-Door Sales Act and the protection of members under the Installation and Utilization of Sports Facilities Act, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. As to the third ground for appeal

A. Article 5(1) of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act provides, “The terms and conditions shall be interpreted fairly in accordance with the principle of trust and good faith and shall not be interpreted differently from the customer.” Article 5(2) provides, “Where the meaning of the terms and conditions is not clear, it shall be interpreted favorably to the customer.” Therefore, the contents of the terms and conditions shall be objectively and uniformly construed on the basis of average customer’s understanding potential without considering the intent or specific circumstances of each contractor. In the context of customer protection, when the contents of the terms and conditions are unclear or doubtful, it shall be construed favorably to the customer and unfavorably to the customer (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Da3526, Oct. 28, 2005; 2009Da79644, Aug. 25, 2011).

On the other hand, even if the specific and direct judgment on the matters alleged by the parties was not indicated in the reasons for the judgment, if the conclusion of the judgment does not affect the conclusion of the judgment, there is no illegality of omission of judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da56116, Dec. 26, 2002, etc.).

B. According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the record, 15.95 million won paid by the defendant to the plaintiff according to the contract of this case is the aggregate of 7.7 million won of deposit, 7.5 million won of membership fee, 7.5 million won of value-added tax on membership fee, and 7.50 million won of the remaining amount after deducting the penalty of 10% of the total amount when the application for termination of the contract of this case was made during the period during which the service was received, service fees, and the service completion fees are deducted, and the defendant's termination of the contract of this case shall also be subject to the above provisions such as penalty for early termination under the contract of this case. However, in the case of "service fees" other than penalty and service completion fees, the contract of this case and the terms of the contract of this case, etc. do not provide for the concept and calculation method thereof, and it is not acceptable as it is by the plaintiff's assertion that the service use fees should be deducted from the total amount as a profit

C. Therefore, it is alleged in the grounds of appeal that the court below did not make any decision on the Plaintiff’s claim on the deduction of service charges, but as long as the court below cannot accept the claim on the grounds as seen above, such omission of judgment by the court below does not affect the conclusion of the judgment, so this part of the ground of appeal is without merit.

3. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

The Plaintiff asserts the part of the lower court’s determination that the amount of service fees and service progress fees deducted upon the termination of the instant case should be limited to KRW 8,250,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won including the above membership fees and the value-added tax. However, the Plaintiff’s rejection of the claim on “service fees” is identical to the foregoing, and accordingly, it can be recognized only as the deduction of “service progress fees”. Since the service progress fees are deducted from the membership fees upon the expiration of the contract period, it is apparent that the amount that can be deducted from the service progress fees does not exceed KRW 8

Therefore, this part of the judgment below is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the interpretation of legal acts and the interpretation of terms and conditions, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

4. 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 Kim Yong-deok (Presiding Justice)