beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, except for the addition of the following '2. Additional Judgment' as to the argument that the defendant emphasizes or adds to the court of first instance, and thus, it is citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420
2. Additional determination
A. The defendant's assertion that "the operation agreement on each of the instant real estate" constitutes a standardized contract and thus, the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions applies (hereinafter "the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions"). Since the above agreement is invalid as it is unfairly unfavorable to the defendant, the plaintiff's claim is groundless.
B. Determination 1) Article 6 of the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions that is unfairly unfavorable to a customer under Article 6 of the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions cannot be deemed null and void on the ground that the terms and conditions clause is somewhat unfavorable to the customer on the ground that it is contrary to the principle of trust and good faith. It is insufficient to find that the standardized terms and conditions developer abused his/her trade position to make and used the standardized terms and conditions clause contrary to the legitimate interests and reasonable expectations of the contracting party, thereby impairing the sound trade order. Furthermore, whether the standardized terms and conditions clause is unreasonably unfavorable to the customer who falls under the grounds for invalidation should be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances, including the contents and probability of disadvantages that may arise to the customer pursuant to the standardized terms and conditions clause, impact on the transaction process between the parties, and the relevant provisions of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da214864, Jun. 12, 2014).