In this paper, I asked to change.

On January 7, 2018, the defendant accepted this, and sent two containers containing the plaintiff and the defendant's cosmetics to China.

On January 10, 2018, the Plaintiff deposited the above proposal 678,000, China, as the Defendant’s request, for the second-class customs clearance for containers, to the Chinese customs agent.

The two containers were seized to the Chinese customs office after their arrival at the port of the world.

On January 7, 2018, the Defendant prepared a written performance statement stating that “The 678,000 bill for customs clearance ( through airbage 339,000 bill x 2 containers x 122,040,000 won) shall be returned until April 23, 2018,” and the 1,356,000 bill ( through airbage 678,000 bill x 2 times, 24,080,000 won) shall be deposited to the Plaintiff by June 23, 2018.”

Two containers have not been cleared until now, and the plaintiff's goods have not been transported to the destination.

【No dispute over the grounds for recognition”, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and the overall purport of the pleadings as to the grounds for the claim as a whole, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff KRW 122,040,000 for customs clearance in accordance with each performance document. The defendant is understood as a penalty agreement for breach of the defendant’s obligation to compensate for the non-performance of the defendant’s obligation under each performance clause. Since this is presumed to be a liquidated amount of damages pursuant to Article 398(4) of the Civil Act, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff an estimated amount of damages for the non-performance of the obligation to transport.

However, if the fixed amount of damages is unreasonably excessive, the status of the contracting party, the purpose and content of the contract, the motive for the delayed reward, the actual damage and the delayed amount, and the transaction practices at that time.