logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.10.28 2016나2013541
손해배상 등
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) the part of the 6th part of the 6th part of the 6th part of the judgment of the first instance is as follows; (b) the part of the 6th part of the 6th part of the 6th part of the judgment; and (c) the part of the 7th part subsequent to the 2nd part of the 2nd part of the 2nd

2. Additional parts

A. On the 6th part of the judgment of the first instance court, the Plaintiff did not explain the above additional agreement to the Plaintiff, and did not so. The Plaintiff breached its duty to explain the important contents of the contract.

Even if such additional agreements are concluded to the effect that they should be deemed null and void as a juristic act which has manifestly lost fairness.

However, insofar as an additional agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was formed in a normal manner, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have breached its duty to explain.

In addition, the unfair legal act of Article 104 of the Civil Act alleged by the Plaintiff is established when there is a significant imbalance between payment and benefit in return, and such an unfair legal act is established when a transaction that lost balance was made using flag, rashness, or inexperience of the victimized party. Even if the victimized party was in a poor state, there was no intention to use it, i.e.,, the intent to use it, knowing the circumstances of the victimized party

If there is no significant imbalance between the payment and the consideration, it is not an unfair legal act of Article 104 of the Civil Code.

In addition, whether a certain juristic act constitutes an unfair juristic act shall be determined at the time of the juristic act. Thus, if it is not unfair as a result of comprehensive consideration of the rights and duties relationship according to the contents of the contract as at the time of the conclusion of the contract, then one of the parties to the contract shall be

arrow