[계약금반환청구사건][고집1971민,612]
A case in which a court has reduced the estimated amount of damages on the ground that it was unjustly excessive;
In the sales contract which sets the amount of KRW 9,58,600, the estimated amount of compensation for damages in the event of a failure to perform the contract is set at KRW 4,00,000,000, because it is unreasonable and excessive, it is reasonable to set the amount at KRW 2,00,000.
Article 398 of the Civil Act
Plaintiff
Defendant
Seoul Central District Court (70 Ghana13045) in the first instance trial
The part against the defendant in the original judgment shall be modified as follows:
The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 2,00,000 won with an amount equal to five percent per annum from October 15, 1970 to the date of full payment.
The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.
All the costs of lawsuit shall be divided into two parts of the first and second trials, and one of them shall be borne by the defendant, and the remaining one shall be borne by the plaintiff.
The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 4,00,000 and the amount equivalent to five percent per annum from February 3, 1970 to the full payment.
The judgment that the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant and the declaration of provisional execution were sought.
The defendant-appellant shall revoke the part of the original judgment against the defendant.
The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
All the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff in the first and second instances.
On January 17, 1970, the Plaintiff agreed to purchase KRW 9,508,60 per annum 17,800 and to pay KRW 1,000 on February 2, 197 and KRW 4,58,600 to the Defendant for the above 40-year payment period for the above 40-year payment period for the above 40-year payment period. The Plaintiff agreed to pay KRW 4,58,600 to the Defendant with the remaining 5-year payment period for the above 40-year payment period for the above 40-year payment period for the above 40-year payment period for the 50-year payment period for the 20-year payment period for the 50-year payment period for the 20-year payment period for the 40-year payment period for the 50-year payment period for the 20-year payment period for the 20-year payment period for the 30-year payment period for the 30-year payment period for the 10-year payment period.
After the conclusion of this contract with the defendant, the plaintiff knew that the market price of this case was about 7,500 won or 8,000 won at a usual rate, and requested the non-party 2 who arranged for the sale of this case to cancel the contract of this case or to re-determine the land price according to the market price, and the non-party 2, who is the husband of the plaintiff, kept the non-party 3,00,000 won and the seal of the plaintiff as part payment, and then the non-party 2 requested the defendant to re-Adjustment of the price in accordance with the above market price, and the non-party 2 responded to it and the non-party 2 agreed to renew the contract of this case to the non-party 3, who is the husband of the plaintiff, and the non-party 3 did not perform the above duty of re-issuance without understanding that the non-party 3 did not perform the above duty of re-issuance of the plaintiff's purchase and sale, and thus, the defendant did not perform the above duty of re-issuance of the above plaintiff 2.
Therefore, in light of the above facts, the agreement to confiscate the down payment and intermediate payment amount of KRW 4,00,000 that the defendant already received when the plaintiff tried to pay the remainder payment as above shall be deemed to be an estimate of the amount of damages unless there are other special circumstances. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion that the total amount of the purchase price in this case is merely KRW 9,558,60,000, which is nothing more than the total amount of KRW 9,558,600,000 is determined as an estimate of the amount of damages is remarkably unfair and is against public order and good morals. Therefore, the plaintiff's defense that the above determination of the amount of damages is null and void is contrary to public order and good morals cannot be deemed to be contrary to the above determination of the amount of damages.
However, since the total amount of the purchase price of this case is about 9,58,60 won, and this contract was cancelled, and thus, it would be reasonable to set the amount of damages of 4,00,000 won which would not be unduly excessive, in this case, for which the defendant would incur significant damages. (The defendant would have anticipated that the plaintiff would comply with the payment date of the remaining amount, and would be in a lawsuit at a different place, and that the plaintiff would not have paid 5,00,000 won interest rate of 0% per month from 00,000,000 won for the above 200,000 won for the above 30,000,000 won for interest rate of 175,000 won for the above 0,000 won for the above 30,000,000 won for the above 9,000,000 won for the above 30,000,000 won for the above reasons, the court below did not have asserted that the plaintiff would have been 15,0.
Judges Jeon Soo-chul (Presiding Judge)