TITLE	[Damages, Warehouse Charges]Supreme Court Decision 2009Da61803, 61810 Decided December 10, 2009 [full Text]
Summary
[1] The validity of a standardized contractual term which excludes a warehouse person's exercise of mercantile lien without due reasons (invalid) [2] The case holding that in the case where a financial institution holding a right to property transferred for security obtained a letter of promise printed with fixed characters containing the clause that ""at the time when a right-holder to property transferred for security sells a collateral and collects debts, a warehouse person can not exercise a right to preferential payment related to mercantile lien, etc."" from a warehouse person who stores an object of security by means of transfer, such clause is null and void as an unfair standardized contractual term

Prev	[Violation of the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection of Victims thereof(Rape, etc. against Minors under Thirteen Years of Age)]Supreme Court Decision 2009Do11448 Decided December 10
Next	[Violation of the Securities and Exchange Act] Supreme Court Decision 2008Do6953 Decided December 10, 2009