All
| TITLE | Supreme Court Decision 2013Da214864 Decided June 12, 2014【Unjust Enrichment】 [full Text] |
|---|---|
| Summary | |
|
[1] Where a party forms a contract using standardized terms and conditions with the other party through individual negotiation as to a specific clause, whether the clause is subject to statutes regulating standardized terms and conditions (negative) / Elements to recognize the existence of an individual negotiation, and bearer of the burden of proof (i.e., business operator) [2] Where Party B took out a loan from Party A (an insurance company) with real property as collateral based on a loan and mortgage agreement including a clause that “expense is borne by marking √ in one of the three items on mortgage transaction expenses” related to additional interest rate, and Party B bore the mortgage transaction expense according to the choice made under the above clause, the case holding that the judgment below erred in misapprehending the legal principle [3] The elements and the standard of review to invalidate the standardized terms and conditions as “being unfair going aganst the principle of trust and good faith” [4] Where Party B took out a loan from Party A with real property as collateral based on a loan and mortgage agreement including a clause that “expense is borne by marking √ in one of the three items on mortgage transaction expenses” related to additional interest rate, the case holding that it is insufficient to view that the above clause constitutes a “standardized terms and conditions clause which is unfair going against the principle of trust and good faith,” thereby becoming invalid under Article 6(1) of the former Act of the Regulation of Terms and Conditions |
|
