208 Gaz. 11712 Compensation (as referred to in this paragraph)

○○○○ Corporation

Seoul ○○-gu ○○ Dong* -*

Representative Director 000

○○○, ○○

○ ○

Seoul ○○-gu ○○○-dong** * ○ apartment-dong ○○-dong 0

Law Firm ○○, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

[Defendant-Appellant]

June 20, 2008

September 19, 2008

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The defendant was sentenced to the judgment of this case from November 29, 2007 to the plaintiff 42, 318, 760 won and the date of the judgment of this case.

5% per annum and 20% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.

1. Basic facts

On January 22, 2007, the defendant, who operates the main store with the plaintiff that is a wholesale company of alcoholic beverages, concluded a contract with the following contents (hereinafter "the contract of this case").

Article 1: The plaintiff shall lend 20 million won to the defendant the operating fund.

Article 2(1):The defendant shall sell only the goods supplied by the plaintiff, and the compulsory sale period shall be at least three years after the completion of the repayment of the loan.

Article 3: The defendant shall repay in installments for 20 months each month from February 22, 2007 to September 22, 2008.

Article 6(2): If the Defendant fails to observe the mandatory sales period under Article 2(1), the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff a sales profit loss equivalent to 30% of the estimated sales revenue of the Plaintiff’s Defendant during the remaining compulsory sales period, and a penalty of financial penalty equivalent to 25% per annum on the penalty for breach of contract.

On January 23, 2007, the Plaintiff lent KRW 20 million to the Defendant on January 23, 2007 under the instant contract.

○ After that, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to supply alcoholic beverages on credit for a certain period of time due to the difficulties in business due to the disposition of business suspension, etc. of the main store, but was rejected. On November 29, 2007, the Defendant borrowed money from another alcoholic beverage company to repay the remaining loans of KRW 12 million to the Plaintiff and suspended transactions with the Plaintiff.

[Evidence] Evidence No. 3-5, Evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

○ Plaintiff’s assertion: The Defendant did not observe the mandatory sales period stipulated under Article 2(1) of the instant contract; thus, the Defendant should pay to the Plaintiff KRW 37,318,760 as penalty for sales profit loss under Article 6(2) of the instant contract, and KRW 5 million as penalty for financial penalty.

○ Defendant’s assertion: Article 2(1) of the instant contract is null and void in accordance with Article 23(1)5 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act and Article 6(1) of the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions (hereinafter “Standard Contract Regulation Act”).

3. Determination

○ Article 23(1)5 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act provides that a business entity shall not engage in any conduct that is likely to undermine fair trade by doing any transaction under the condition that the business activities of the transaction partner are unfairly restricted.

Article 6 (1) of the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions provides that a clause that has lost fairness in violation of the principle of good faith shall be null and void, and Article 6 (2) 1 of the same Act provides that a clause that is unreasonably unfavorable to customers shall be presumed to be unfair.

Article 2(1) of the contract of this case provides that the defendant shall sell only the goods supplied by the plaintiff for at least three years after the completion of the repayment of loans of KRW 20 million. This is in violation of Article 23(1)5 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act since it is a condition that unfairly restricts the defendant's business activities, and it is reasonable to view that the contract of this case is a clause that has lost fairness as provided in Article 6(1) of the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions as a condition that unfairly unfavorable to the defendant. Thus, even on April 4, 2005, the plaintiff is also null and void in light of the purport of Article 2(1) and Article 6(2) of the contract of this case, which provides that most of the contracts of this case, including Articles 2(1) and 6(2), are printed in the contract of this case, and the contract of this case can only be deemed null and void in light of the purport of Article 6(1)2 of the contract of this case.

Since the defendant's argument is well-grounded, the plaintiff's argument is not accepted.

4. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Judges Kim Han-sung