logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2019.04.11 2017나55111
지연손해금 청구의 소
Text

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the parts which are dismissed or added as described in the following paragraph (2).

2. Parts to be removed or added;

A. Part 5 of the judgment of the court of first instance is "Agreements on the Documents of this case" in Part 7 as "Agreements on the Documents of this case and the Compensation Agreements".

B. Prior to “the developments and processes leading to the preparation of the letter of other cases and the compensation agreement of this case” in Part 5 of the first instance court’s decision, N of the witness of the trial court, the chairman of the MSC, had been addressed at the time of consultation on compensation between the Defendant and the representatives of the fishermen, “The two sides have reached mutual consultation with each other in order to ultimately conclude all compensation issues arising from construction Fdong and G construction.”

C. Part VI through 8 of the judgment of the first instance court (Article 3-2 of the Grounds for Appeal) are as follows.

B. Whether the agreement to bring a lawsuit in this case is null and void or not, the Plaintiffs were in violation of the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions, and the provisions of the Plaintiff’s claim to bring a lawsuit in this case are governed by the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions.

The terms and conditions applicable to the terms and conditions are subject to the prohibition of filing a lawsuit unfairly unfavorable to him/her, which argues that Article 14 of the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions is invalid, and that it cannot be viewed as the content of the contract in accordance with Article 3 of the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions.

First of all, we examine whether the provisions of the subordinate clause of the instant letter and the compensation agreement correspond to the terms and conditions stipulated in the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions.

If one of the parties to a contract prepares a contract in advance according to a certain form and presents it to the other party and concludes a contract in accordance with the contents, the other party shall be the other party as to the specific provision.

arrow