beta
Text
1. The plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Defendant is a company that concludes a contract of carriage with home flass, slot machines, etc. and delivers the goods entrusted by the Defendant to the buyer.
B. The Plaintiffs received monthly transportation cost of KRW 2,50,00 from the Defendant as the borrower holding a small truck, and entered into a transportation contract (hereinafter “the instant transportation contract”) with a content that, using the owned vehicle, the Defendant would perform the delivery of the goods delivered by the Home Plus J (Plaintiff A, D), K stores (Plaintiff B, I), L Points (Plaintiff C, E), M Points (Plaintiff F), N Points (Plaintiff H), and O stores (Plaintiff H).
C. According to the instant transport contract, the Plaintiffs paid KRW 1,00,000,000 to the Defendant as the admission fee, and the said subscription fee shall be deemed to cease to exist even if the said transport contract is terminated in the future.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant accession fee agreement”). D.
Based on the above contract of carriage, the Plaintiffs paid KRW 1,000,000 each of the subscription fees to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant subscription fees”).
E. Each of the instant transportation contracts between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant was terminated as of the date of the closing of argument in the instant case.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 to 3, 5 through 10, Eul evidence 4 and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Assertion and determination
A. (1) The defendant received KRW 1,000,000 from the plaintiffs without any ground. This constitutes unjust enrichment and thus must be returned to the plaintiffs.
Shebly, even if not, the accession fee arrangement in this case is null and void for the following reasons.
The contract of carriage of this case constitutes a standardized contract, and the contract of carriage of this case constitutes a clause which is unreasonably unfavorable to the plaintiffs who are customers.
Article 23 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act provides for the instant subscription fee agreement.