Whether the standardized contract terms and conditions that recognize the right to cancel the contract of the leasing company fall under Article 7 subparagraph 2 and Article 9 (2) of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act and are invalid if there is no cause attributable to the supplier of the leased property in the lease contract, but it is impossible to maintain the lease contract relationship due to the cause attributable to the lessee (negative)

Considering the unique nature and economic functions of a lease agreement, in order to achieve a single objective, the lease agreement and the lease agreement between a lessee and a lessee between a lessee and a lessee should be understood as a contractual relationship to achieve a single objective as a whole, rather than as a separate contractual relationship separated in terms of functions. In purchasing a lease, all negotiations have been made between a lessee and a lessee, such as the selection of a contracting party to a contract, investigation into the other party’s credit standing, and determination of the terms and conditions of the sale, etc., the lessee only pays the lessee the purchase price of the object to the lessee, and in economic aspect, the lessee is also an interest-oriented party to the lease transaction. In light of the fact that the lessee voluntarily consented to the terms and conditions of the lease agreement and the lessee’s business cannot continue to exist due to a cause attributable to the lessee, it is difficult to deem that the lease company’s act recognizing the right to cancel the contract and the right to cancel the contract constitutes Article 7(2) and Article 9(2) of the Regulation of Terms and Conditions.

Subparagraph 2 of Article 7 and Article 9(2) of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act

Han-J Co., Ltd. (Attorneys Jeon Dong-jin et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Busan Co., Ltd. (Attorney Kim Dong-sik, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 180,000,000 won with 18% per annum from March 1, 1991 to March 22, 1996 and 25% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

4. The above paragraph (1) can be provisionally executed.

"The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 180,000,000 won with 18% per annum from March 1, 1991 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 25% per annum from the next day to the full payment date."

1. Facts of recognition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or they can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of Gap evidence 1 (Contract), Gap evidence 2-1 (Contract), 2-1 (Written Contract), Gap evidence 3-1 (Written Contract Acceptance), 2 (Written Contract Acceptance), Gap evidence 4-1 (Notice of Termination), 2 (Notice of Termination), 3 (Notice of Termination), 5-1, 2 (Written Request for Return of Advance Payment), 6 (Evidence of Contents), 7 (Evidence of Document) and testimony of Kim Il-young, and the whole purport of the oral argument. There is no counter-proof.

(1) On January 15, 1991, the Plaintiff Company entered into a facility lease agreement with the non-party corporation, the non-party corporation (hereinafter the non-party corporation), which is engaged in the business of producing and selling building stones. According to the contract, the Plaintiff Company (lease company) entered into a facility lease agreement with the non-party corporation on the facility lease of 250T/H 2 leasing. Under the contract, the Plaintiff Company’s acquisition price of the above facility was KRW 1,80,00,000 for the non-party corporation (Lessee) and the lease amount was KRW 48 months from the issuance date of the certificate of delivery of the non-party company’s goods, and the lease amount was KRW 192,235,400 for the leased goods. The interest rate on the financial expenses was 18% for the non-party company’s sales contract, and where the non-party company’s sales contract was defaulted or the non-party company’s sales contract was terminated or discontinued, or there was considerable reason for the Plaintiff Company to find it difficult.

(2) Accordingly, on January 30, 1991, the non-party company concluded a sales contract with the non-party company located in the non-party company located in the non-party company located in the non-party company located in the 53th of the Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, the amount of which is KRW 1,80,000,000, and the down payment of which is KRW 180,000,000, at the time of concluding a contract with the Plaintiff, shall be paid as each lease fund after the supply of the above facilities, on condition that the non-party company would install and supply the above facilities at the non-party company's business site located in the 53th of

(3) Around February of the same year, the Plaintiff Company sent an order stating that the above aggregate pulverization equipment was ordered to the Defendant Company in accordance with the terms and conditions of the above purchase agreed between the Nonparty Company and the Defendant Company. The order follows: ① When the Plaintiff Company or the Defendant Company violated or fails to fulfill the terms and conditions of the order, the Bank’s business is suspended or discontinued, or when the company is dissolved, or there is considerable reason to deem it difficult to continue its business operations due to bankruptcy, composition, or dissolution, etc., the Plaintiff Company may cancel this contract without giving notice to the Nonparty Company or the Defendant Company (Article 5 of the above terms and conditions of the order). ② When the sales contract was cancelled pursuant to Article 5 of the above terms and conditions of the above order, the Plaintiff Company shall return the total amount of interest calculated by applying the interest rate applied to lease fees to the Plaintiff Company and the Nonparty Company from the date of receipt thereof to the date of return thereof to the Plaintiff Company (Article 3(1) of the above Terms and Conditions of the order), and the Plaintiff Company shall be liable to the Plaintiff Company’s 20 and the above terms and conditions of the contract were not accepted.

(4) However, since the non-party company did not obtain permission from the authority to extract aggregate and did not construct a factory at the place of business, the non-party company failed to supply the above aggregate crushing equipment to the non-party company by June 30, 1991, the agreed payment period, and accordingly, the lease period could not commence, the plaintiff company notified the non-party company and the defendant company of the cancellation of the above lease and sales contract on September 15, 1993.

2. Determination:

A. According to the above facts, the above sales contract between the plaintiff company and the non-party company was lawfully rescinded by the plaintiff's notification of cancellation based on the occurrence of reasons for cancellation of the contract, barring any special circumstances. Accordingly, the defendant has the obligation to return the down payment of KRW 180,000 and the agreed interest thereof to the plaintiff.

B. In regard to this, the defendant argues that Article 5 of the above order condition and Article 3 of the special agreement which are the contents of the above contract between the plaintiff company and the defendant company can unilaterally cancel the contract and seek restitution to the defendant company even if there is no cause attributable to the defendant company. Thus, it is not only a provision that limits the scope of the enterpriser's damages or limits the risk to be borne by the enterpriser without reasonable grounds, limits the enterpriser's right of rescission, limits the enterpriser's right of rescission, limits the enterpriser's right of rescission not provided by the law, or limits the requirements for the exercise of the right of rescission under the provisions of the law, which might unfairly disadvantage the customer by relaxing the requirements for the right of rescission under the provisions of the law.

C. However, the instant lease agreement is formally similar to a lease agreement under which the lessee purchases leased goods from the lessee of the leased goods and leases them after receiving the lease fee from the lessee. However, in light of the unique nature and economic function of the lease agreement, (i) considering the lease agreement between the Plaintiff Company and the Defendant Company, the leased goods supply agreement between the Plaintiff Company and the Nonparty Company should be understood as a contractual relationship to achieve one objective, rather than understanding the lease agreement between the Plaintiff Company and the Nonparty Company in order to achieve one objective as a separate contractual relationship between the functions of the lease agreement and the lease agreement between the Plaintiff Company and the Nonparty Company, and (ii) in purchasing the aggregate crushing equipment of this case, all negotiations, such as the selection of the parties to the contract, investigation into the other party’s credit status, determination of the terms of the object of the sale, etc., were conducted between the Plaintiff Company and the Defendant Company, and (iii) in economic aspect, the Plaintiff Company is also liable to pay the Plaintiff Company the purchase price to the Plaintiff Company, which is an unfair benefit of the Plaintiff Company and the Defendant Company’s obligee’s defense that did not comply with the above terms and conditions of the agreement.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the interest and delay damages at the rate of 18% per annum from March 1, 1991, which is the date following the date of receipt of the above contract for the contract for the sale of facilities, and the rate of 18% per annum from March 22, 1996, and the rate of 25% per annum from the following day to the date of completion of the contract for the sale of facilities. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted within the above scope of recognition, and the remainder is dismissed for reasons, and with respect to the burden of litigation expenses, Article 89 and the proviso of Article 92 of the Civil Procedure Act, and with respect to the declaration of provisional execution, Article 199 of the Civil Execution Act shall be applied.

Justices Cho Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)