The judgment below

The part against the plaintiff is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Central District Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Under Article 6(1) and (2)1 of the former Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act (amended by Act No. 10169, Mar. 22, 2010; hereinafter “former Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act”), in order to deem the terms and conditions to be null and void on the ground that they are unfairly unfavorable terms and conditions against the principle of trust and good faith, the terms and conditions are somewhat disadvantageous to customers. It is insufficient to say that the standardized terms and conditions are somewhat unfavorable to customers. It is insufficient to say that the standardized terms and conditions contractor abused its position in trade, thereby impairing sound trade order by preparing and using the standardized terms and conditions against the legitimate interests and reasonable expectations of the contracting parties, contrary to the principle of trust and good faith. Thus, whether the standardized terms and conditions are "any terms and conditions unreasonably unfavorable to customers," which falls under the grounds for invalidation of the standardized terms and conditions, should be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances such as the contents and probability of disadvantages that may arise to customers, the impact between the parties involved in the

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 2007Ma1328, Dec. 16, 2008; Supreme Court Decision 2013Da214864, Jun. 12, 2014). In addition, even if the terms and conditions are provided, if it is a general and common matter in a transaction, and thus, the customer could have sufficiently predicted it without a separate explanation, or if it is merely a degree of refising or delaying the matters already prescribed by the Acts and subordinate statutes, it cannot be said that the business entity has an obligation to explain and explain such matters.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Da87453 delivered on April 27, 2007, etc.). 2. Examining the following circumstances in light of the following circumstances, the lower court is based on the leased area of the store allocated after drawing.