[2] The meaning of "in a case where the estimated amount of damages" under Article 398 (2) of the Civil Code is unreasonably excessive, and the base point of time of determination (=at the time of closing argument in the trial of fact-finding)

[3] The validity of the reduction portion in case where the court unfairly reduced the estimated amount of damage compensation because the estimated amount of damage compensation was unfairly excessive (=negative)

[2] According to Article 398 (2) of the Civil Code, "Where the estimated amount of damages is unreasonably excessive, the court may reduce it to a reasonable level." In this context, "unfairly excessive cases" means cases where it is deemed that the payment of the estimated amount would result in the loss of fairness by imposing unfair pressure on the debtor who is in the position of the economically weak in light of the general social concept, considering all the circumstances such as the status of the creditor and the debtor, the purpose and content of the contract, the motive behind the liquidated amount of damages, the ratio of the estimated amount of damages to the amount of debts, the estimated amount of damages, the size of expected damages, and the transaction practices at the time. Meanwhile, in determining whether the estimated amount of damages under the above provision is unreasonably excessive or the scope of reasonable reduction is to be determined specifically, the court shall take into account all the above circumstances that occurred between them as of the time of the closing of argument at the fact-finding court.

[3] In a case where the court made a reduction because the estimated amount of damages was unfairly excessive, the part of the agreement on the estimate of damages, which corresponds to the reduction, shall be deemed null and void from the beginning.

The provisions of the Act on Contracts to Which the State is a Party (hereinafter referred to as the "State Contracts Act") are merely limited to the internal regulations of the State which provides for matters necessary for the handling of contract affairs to be observed by the relevant public officials in a contractual relationship between the State and a private person, as well as contracts to which the State Contracts Act applies, since the nature of the contract is not different from the contract between the private persons, the provisions of the law and the principles of the law shall be applied as they are, except as otherwise provided in the law (see Supreme Court Decision 95Da11436, Apr. 26, 1996). Thus, even if there is an agreement of penalty for breach of contract with respect to the contract deposit paid by the sales contract, even if the contract deposit has the nature of the contract deposit

On the other hand, since the agreement of a penalty for nonperformance of obligation is presumed to be an estimate of the amount of damages under Article 398(4) of the Civil Act, in order to interpret it as a penalty for breach of contract, special circumstances should be asserted and proved (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da35771 delivered on December 8, 200, Supreme Court Decision 2001Da14689 delivered on September 28, 200, etc.).

According to the above legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below that the contract of this case was scheduled to pay damages for the Plaintiff’s nonperformance, which is the buyer, is justifiable. There is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the nature of the contract bond under Article 12 of the State Contracts Act, or in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the classification of penalty and damages as otherwise alleged in the

2. As to whether the estimated amount of damages was excessive

According to Article 398(2) of the Civil Code, "Where the estimated amount of compensation for damage is unreasonably excessive, the court may reduce it to a reasonable level." In this context, "the case where the amount of compensation for damage is unreasonably excessive" means the case where the payment of the estimated amount of compensation for damage is deemed to result in the loss of fairness by imposing unfair pressure on the debtor who is in the position of the economically weak in light of the general social concept in light of all the circumstances such as the status of the creditor and the debtor, the purpose and content of the contract, the motive behind the liquidated amount of compensation for damage, the ratio of estimated amount of compensation for damage to the amount of debt, the estimated amount of expected damage, the amount of expected damage, and the transaction practices at the time. In addition, in determining whether the estimated amount of compensation for damage for damage is unreasonably excessive or the scope of reasonable reduction is to be determined specifically, the court shall take into account all the above circumstances that occurred between them as of the time of the closing of argument at the fact-finding court, i.e., the court shall take into account comprehensively the aforementioned circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 20025Da2665.

In light of the circumstances indicated in its holding, the lower court determined that it is reasonable to reduce the contract bond corresponding to the estimated amount of compensation for damages of this case to 50% because it is recognized that the contract bond of this case is excessively excessive, and thus, it is reasonable to reduce it to 50% in light of the aforementioned legal principles, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles or incomplete deliberation as to the estimated amount of compensation for damages, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the reduction of the estimated amount of compensation for damages or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. On the initial date of the damages for delay

In a case where the court has reduced the estimated amount of compensation for damage because the estimated amount of compensation for damage is excessive, the part corresponding to the reduced amount in the agreement on the estimated amount of compensation for damage shall be null and void from the beginning (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Da31189, Nov. 27, 2001). Thus, the court below's order the defendant to pay the amount of money to be reduced as above from the contract deposit amount corresponding to the estimated amount of compensation for damage of this case and damages for delay from the payment date is just in accordance with the above legal principles, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to the due date for the refund of the purchase price and obligation

4. Ex officio determination on damages for delay

Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (amended by Act No. 6868 of May 10, 2003; hereinafter referred to as the "Act prior to amendment"), which provides that the Constitutional Court made a decision of unconstitutionality on April 24, 2003 as to the portion of "interest rate prescribed by Presidential Decree" in the main sentence of Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17981 of May 29, 2003) and the provision on the statutory interest rate in the main sentence of Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17981 of May 29, 2003) shall be 20 percent per annum from the following day to the date of the amendment order to pay damages for delay at the rate of 25 percent per annum from the date of the amendment.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, among the part concerning delay damages of the court below, the part against the defendant ordering payment in excess of 5% per annum from July 1, 2000 to May 31, 2003 as to 3,575,000,000 won to the defendant, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment. This part is sufficient to be directly decided by the court, and therefore, it is decided to be readable pursuant to Article 437 of the Civil Procedure Act. The plaintiff's appeal corresponding to the above part is dismissed, and the remaining appeal by the defendant is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Han-gu (Presiding Justice)