beta
Text
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of this court’s acceptance of the judgment of the first instance is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the addition of the following:
2. Parts 5 and 15 of Part 5 (No. 5) (only in the case where the termination of this case was transmitted by a person who has a reasonable ground to believe that the termination was based on the Plaintiff’s will), the Defendant did not perform the obligation to confirm himself, take temporary measures, and ensure stability as stipulated in Article 21(1) and (2) of the former Electronic Financial Transactions Act, and Articles 2-4 and 2-5 of the Telecommunications Fraud Loss Refund Act at the time of the termination of this case. This constitutes a case where the Defendant could have known that the electronic document under Article 7(3)2 of the Telecommunications Fraud Loss Refund Act was not the originator’s, and thus, it is invalid in violation of Article 9 subparag. 3 of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act, since the addressee of the electronic document did not include the expression of intent contained in the electronic document as the originator’s, and thus, the provisions stipulated in the Electronic Financial Transaction Act are likely to unfairly disadvantage the Plaintiff, a customer, by relaxing the requirements for the Defendant’s right of rescission or termination.
Article 9 subparag. 3 of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act No. 17 (hereinafter referred to as the "Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act") intends to limit the enterpriser's right to cancel or terminate, and since the relevant provisions of each of the above terms and conditions are not about the expression of intent of the Plaintiff who is the customer but about the customer, they cannot be said to violate the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act.
The plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.
In calculating the amount of damages of the plaintiff, the plaintiff of the 15th class and the 6th class.