beta
Text
The judgment below
The part against the plaintiff is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Central District Court.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).
1. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal
A. Under Article 6(1) and (2)1 of the former Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act (amended by Act No. 10169, Mar. 22, 2010; hereinafter “former Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act”), in order to deem the terms and conditions to be null and void on the ground that they are unfairly unfavorable terms and conditions against the principle of trust and good faith, the terms and conditions are somewhat disadvantageous to the customer. It is insufficient to say that the standardized terms and conditions contractor abused the transaction position to make and use the standardized terms and conditions against the legitimate interests of the contracting party and reasonable expectations, thereby impairing the sound trade order. It is recognized that the standardized terms and conditions contractor unfairly at a disadvantage to the customer, such as impairing the sound trade order. The issue of whether the standardized terms and conditions are null and void should be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances such as the content and probability of disadvantages that may arise to the customer under the standardized terms and conditions, impact on the transaction process between the parties, and the relevant provisions of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 2007Ma1328, Dec. 16, 2008; Supreme Court Decision 2013Da214864, Jun. 12, 2014). In addition, even if the terms and conditions are provided, if it is a general and common matter in a transaction, and thus, the customer could have sufficiently predicted it without a separate explanation, or if it is merely a degree of refising or delaying the matters already prescribed by the Acts and subordinate statutes, it cannot be said that the business entity has an obligation to explain and explain such matters.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Da87453 Decided April 27, 2007, etc.). B.
In light of the following circumstances, the lower court, after drawing lots.