1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On June 17, 2016, the Defendant issued a public notice on bidding supply (hereinafter “instant bidding supply notice”) with respect to 47 parcels, including a commercial quasi-residential business facility summary, a quasi-residential site, etc. in B, as follows:

B B B C

B. On June 27, 2016, the Plaintiff participated in the bid while paying the bid amount of KRW 1,782,00,000 (hereinafter “the instant bid bond”) as to the land of this case, the supply amount of which was KRW 1,562,830,00,000 for the Daejeon-gu D Parking Lot 1314,40 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”). On the same day, the Plaintiff participated in the bid while paying the bid bond of KRW 89,100,000 (hereinafter “the instant bid bond”). However, on the same day, the Plaintiff did not conclude the contract for the instant land with the Defendant until June 29, 2016, within the contract period.

C. Accordingly, the Defendant reverted the instant bid bond to the Defendant pursuant to the provision that “The successful bidder would invalidate the successful bid without concluding the contract within the contract period and the bid bond shall be attributed to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant bid bond”)” as set out in the notice of tender supply in this case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The notice of tender offer of this case is a standardized contract under Article 2 of the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions, and the provision on attribution of the bid bond of this case is an unfair provision contrary to the good faith principle or an unfair provision unfavorable to customers (Article 6(1) and (2)1 of the above Act). Since it is invalid because it is a provision that imposes an obligation on customers to compensate for damages, such as unfairly excessive damages for delay (Article 8 of the above Act), the Defendant must return the bid bond of this case which the Defendant acquired unfairly without any legal ground to the Plaintiff even if the provision on attribution of the bid bond of this case is valid