The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

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

1. As to the first ground for appeal by a law firm Barun, the lower court, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning, cannot be deemed as a standardized contract subject to the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act (hereinafter “Standard Contract Regulation Act”), and even if the instant special condition constitutes a standardized contract, it constitutes a clause which is unfairly unfavorable to the customer and thus, constitutes a clause which has lost fairness in violation of the principle of trust and good faith.

The Plaintiff did not accept the Plaintiff’s assertion that the contract special conditions of this case violate the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions and thus are null and void, in view of the fact that the clause or the clause that unfairly passing the risk that the business operator should bear without any reasonable reason to the customer does not constitute a clause that imposes liability on the customer for damages such as excessive damages.

Examining the record in accordance with the relevant legal principles, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the interpretation of terms and conditions under the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions concerning the validity of the instant special terms and conditions.

2. As to the ground of appeal No. 2 by a law firm Barun, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, bears the contractual obligation to present reasonable price to the Defendant by failing to submit false cost accounting data pursuant to Article 1 of the instant special terms of contract. The Plaintiff’s failure to submit cost accounting data itself to the Defendant on purpose or by negligence during the process of concluding the instant contract for the supply of goods constitutes nonperformance of obligations under Article 1(1) of the instant special terms of contract. As such, D, an agent of the Plaintiff’s performance, intentionally, during the process of concluding the instant contract for the supply of goods.