logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2017.05.30 2017다202586
기타(금전)
Text

The judgment below

The part against the plaintiff is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to 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. Plaintiff’s ground 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 to customers, such terms and conditions are somewhat disadvantageous to customers. It is insufficient to say that the terms and conditions are somewhat unfavorable to customers. Moreover, it should be recognized that a standardized contract developer abused his/her position in trade, thereby impairing sound trade order by preparing and using a standardized contract contrary to the legitimate interests and reasonable expectations of the contracting parties.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da214864, Jun. 12, 2014). In addition, if a general and common transactional condition is provided even if it is provided, and the customer could have sufficiently anticipated without a separate explanation, or if it is merely a degree of refusing or delaying any matter prescribed by a statute, it cannot be said that the business entity has an obligation to specify and explain such matter.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Da87453 Decided April 27, 2007, etc.). B.

The judgment below

According to the reasoning and evidence duly admitted by the court below, the following facts are revealed.

(1) The association for the reconstruction project of the Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Market, which had the land for the Dongdaemun-gu Market, etc., promoted the new construction project of the commercial building (hereinafter “the commercial building of this case”) called “Madone Star.” The Plaintiff is a reconstruction project between the said reconstruction association and the said rebuilding association around September 2002.

arrow