logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.05.26 2016나2039291
임대차계약 유효확인 청구의 소
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim added by this court are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

Reasons

1. The reasoning for this part of this Court’s reasoning is the same as that of the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, and thus, this part is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. Judgment as to the plaintiff's primary claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion changed the claim in the court of first instance to its primary claim, and the core of the grounds for appeal in this regard is unfair terms and conditions of the lease contract of this case rejected in the court of first instance, and the defendant's breach of duty to explain is invalid, and specific contents are as follows.

The Plaintiff does not enter into the instant lease contract on an equal footing with the Defendant, and the Plaintiff is not likely to change the terms and conditions subject to the regulation of the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions (hereinafter “Terms and Conditions Act”), so the instant lease agreement constitutes a standardized contract subject to the regulation of the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions, since the Defendant breached the duty to explain the terms and conditions of the instant voluntary termination clause against the Plaintiff, it cannot be asserted as the content of the contract. In addition, the Commercial Lease Protection Act also guarantees a lease contract for at least five years to the lessee. Considering that the instant lease agreement can be unilaterally terminated by the Defendant, it is unfairly unfavorable to the Plaintiff, and thus constitutes unfair terms and conditions that the Defendant concluded in a superior position, and thus becomes null and void as it falls under Articles 6(1) and 6(2)1 and 2(2) of the Terms and Conditions Act.

Therefore, it is not effective to notify the Defendant that the instant lease contract is unilaterally terminated based on the provision to terminate the contract of this case.

B. Judgment of this Court on this part.

arrow