[1] The meaning of "where a buyer concludes an installment contract for the purpose of commercial activity" under Article 2 (2) of the Installment Transactions Act

[2] The case holding that where a purchaser entered into an installment financing agreement for the purpose of commercial activities, the standardized contract cannot be exercised to refuse to pay the installment of the standardized contract

[1] "Where a buyer concludes an installment contract for the purpose of commercial activity" under Article 2 (2) of the Installment Transactions Act means not only where a buyer purchases an article purchased with credit extended by a credit provider in installment for the purpose of sale to other consumers, but also where a buyer concludes an installment contract for the purpose of profit-making, not only where the buyer purchases an article purchased with credit extended by the credit provider,

[2] The case holding that the standardized contract clause is not null and void, provided that the buyer cannot exercise the right to refuse the installment payment of the standardized contract where the installment was concluded for the purpose of commercial activity

[1] Article 2 (2) of the Installment Transactions Act / [2] Article 2 (2) of the Installment Transactions Act, Article 30 (3) of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act

Plaintiff

Dongyang Card Co., Ltd.

Seoul District Court Decision 99Na69494 delivered on December 22, 1999

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

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below and the judgment of the court of first instance partially accepted by the court below, the court below acknowledged that when the plaintiff purchased the goods of this case from the non-party for the operation of the advertisement manufacturing, the plaintiff entered into the installment financing agreement of this case with the defendant for the payment of the purchase price, and Article 22 (3) of the General Terms and Conditions of Installment Financing Credit Transaction (hereinafter referred to as the "Terms and Conditions of this case"), where the purchaser entered into the installment financing agreement for the purpose of commercial activity, the seller cannot exercise the right to refuse to pay the installment under paragraph (1) of the same Article, which is recognized to the buyer when the installment sales agreement with the non-party becomes null and void, or cancelled or cancelled due to the seller's fault. The court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the contract of this case was null and void in violation of the Regulation of Terms and Conditions of this case, since the plaintiff entered into the installment financing agreement with the defendant who is a credit provider for the purpose of commercial activity.

"Where a buyer concludes an installment contract for the purpose of commercial activity" under Article 2 (2) of the Installment Transactions Act does not mean that the buyer purchases an article purchased with credit extension from a credit provider in installments for the purpose of sale to other consumers, but it is reasonable to interpret that the buyer concludes an installment contract for the purpose of profit-making, not only for the purpose of his own consumption, and where Article 30 (3) of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act provides that "if there are special provisions in other Acts with respect to the terms and conditions in a specific business area, the provisions of this Act shall prevail." In light of the fact that Article 2 (2) of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act governing the installment financing agreement of this case provides the same contents as the contents of the terms and conditions of this case, it shall not be deemed that the terms and conditions of this case violate the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are all justified, and there is no error of law by mistake or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

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 Son Ji-yol (Presiding Justice)