[1] Whether a standardized contract clause is presumed to be unfair terms and conditions as "an unreasonably unfavorable clause against a customer" under Article 6 (2) 1 of the former Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act, provided that an enterpriser may additionally select a sales agent within the sales area of the sales agency in consideration of the market situation (affirmative)

[2] Whether the terms and conditions clause stipulating that if either of the business entities or sales agencies intends to terminate an agency contract, the other party must give written notice to the other party two months prior to the scheduled date of termination of the contract is presumed to be unfair terms and conditions as "a clause unreasonably unfavorable to the customer" under Article 6 (2) 1 of the former Terms and Conditions Regulation Act (affirmative with qualification)

[3] Whether it is possible to issue an order to correct a standardized contract clause that has no meaning to maintain independently from the standardized contract clause if the unfair standardized contract clause is subject to deletion or revision as a corrective order (affirmative)

[4] Whether the Fair Trade Commission may actively intervene in the terms and conditions of an unfair contract and order the parties to revise them (negative)

[1] Article 6 (2) 1 of the former Regulation of Standardized Contracts (amended by Act No. 6459 of March 28, 2001) provides that an enterpriser may select an additional sales agent within a sales agent if necessary in light of the market situation, even though the enterpriser's obligation to guarantee sales area to the sales agent is not naturally recognized, it is not allowed to unfairly infringe upon the enterpriser's sales agent's right of sales area. Thus, the above provision of the standardized contract provides that the enterpriser can unilaterally select sales agent within the sales agent's sales area without mutual consultation. Thus, it unfairly infringes on the sales agent's right of sales area by allowing an enterpriser to unilaterally reduce the sales area of the customer's sales agent's sales agent's sales agent's sales area, and it is presumed that the standardized contract is unfair as an "unfair unfavorable clause against the customer" under Article 6 (2) 1 of the former Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act.

[2] As to the terms and conditions which provide that if either of the parties to a sales agency intends to terminate an agency contract, it shall be notified in writing to the other party two months prior to the scheduled date of termination, it seems that the party has reserved the right to terminate the contract on an equal basis with both parties. However, since the sales agency has invested capital, it is difficult for the other party to terminate the contract at any time at any time, the contract can be terminated at any time at a grace period of two months depending on necessity, and in substance, the contract can be terminated at any time. Thus, regardless of the existence of special circumstances, such as destruction of trust relationship between the parties, occurrence of unavoidable reasons, nonperformance of obligation, etc., the contract can be terminated at any time if the business operator makes a written advance notice at any time before two months prior to the scheduled date of termination. Thus, it is presumed that the terms and conditions are unfairly unfavorable to the customer under Article 6 (2) 1 of the former Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act (amended by Act No. 6459, Mar. 28

[3] If an unfair terms and conditions clause is subject to deletion or revision as a corrective order, it is legitimate to order the deletion or revision of the terms and conditions clause that has no meaning to continue independently from the provision.

[4] Generally, the terms and conditions shall be incorporated into a part of the contract, and the contents of the contract shall be determined by the parties to the contract, so the Fair Trade Commission may order the deletion or revision of the unfair terms and conditions provisions in accordance with Article 17-2 (1) of the former Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act (amended by Act No. 6459 of Mar. 28, 2001) in a passive way to eliminate the unfairness of the unfair terms and conditions, and it shall not actively intervene in the contents of the contract by ordering the modification of any content of the terms

[1] Article 6 (2) 1 of the former Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act (amended by Act No. 6459 of March 28, 2001) / [2] Article 6 (2) 1 of the former Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act (amended by Act No. 6459 of March 28, 2001) / [3] Articles 17 and 17-2 of the former Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act (amended by Act No. 6459 of March 28, 2001) / [4] Articles 17 and 17-2 (1) of the former Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act (amended by Act No. 6459 of March 28, 2001)

Suwon Automobile Sales Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Shin & Kim, Attorneys Hun-hwan et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Fair Trade Commission (Attorney Kim Jae-ho, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Intervenor joining the Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 99Nu1344 delivered on January 11, 2001

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

Article 4 (3) of the Terms and Conditions of this case providing that the plaintiff can select a sales agent additionally within the sales agent's sales agent's sales agent's sales area in consideration of the market situation, even though the plaintiff's obligation to guarantee sales agent's sales area is not acknowledged as a matter of course, it is not permitted to unfairly infringe upon the plaintiff's sales agent's right. Thus, the above terms and conditions of this case are allowed to unilaterally select a sales agent's sales agent's sales area within the sales agency's sales area without mutual consultation. Thus, it unfairly infringes on the sales agent's right of sales agent's sales area by allowing a business operator to unilaterally reduce sales area's sales area's sales agent's sales area's sales area's sales contract's sales agent's sales contract's sales agent's sales agent's sales contract's sales agent's sales agent's sales contract's sales agent's sales agent's sales contract's sales agent's sales agent's sales contract's sales agent's sales agent's sales contract's sales agent's sales contract's sales agent's sales contract's sales agent's 2.

In light of the relevant statutes and the records, we affirm the judgment below that the corrective order for the provision of this case is lawful on the premise that Article 4 (3) and Article 37 (1) of the Terms and Conditions of this case is unfair terms and conditions, and that Article 37 (1) of the above Act is subject to removal or revision of the above corrective order, since Article 37 (2) of the above Act does not have any meaning to continue to exist independently. Thus, the corrective order of this case to which Article 37 (2) of this case is subject to removal or revision is also lawful. The argument in the grounds of appeal as to the provision of this case is without merit.

In addition, the terms and conditions are generally incorporated into part of the contract, and the contents of the contract are determined by the parties to the contract, so the defendant may order the deletion or revision of the unfair terms and conditions provisions in accordance with Article 17-2 (1) of the Terms and Conditions Act in a passive way to eliminate their unfairness, and it shall not actively intervene in the contents of the contract by ordering the correction of the terms and conditions with any content. Therefore, the argument in the grounds of appeal that the contents of the corrective order in this case are unlawful is

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Son Ji-yol (Presiding Justice)