beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.06.07 2017나52384

대여금 등

Text

1. The judgment of the first instance court, including the Plaintiff’s claim extended by this court, is modified as follows.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of this court’s judgment citing the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following cases, and thus, citing it as it is by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

(However, "Defendants" in the first instance judgment in the height of 2.2. order of the co-defendant C, which has been separately determined, shall be deemed to be "Defendants and Co-Defendant C of the first instance trial", and "Defendant C" to be "Co-Defendant C of the first instance trial."

The fourth to seventeenth of the judgment of the first instance are as follows.

3) Where there is an agreement between the parties to the reduction of penalty to pay penalty if there is a default between the parties to the reduction of penalty, whether the penalty is scheduled to pay the penalty or not shall be determined individually in a specific case by comprehensively taking into account the details of the disposal document, such as a written contract, and the developments leading up to the conclusion of the contract. Penalty is presumed as liquidated damages under Article 398(4) of the Civil Act; however, special circumstances where the agreement between the parties to the penalty is difficult to deem that the agreement between the parties to compensate for or compensate for the damage caused by the nonperformance of obligation is to be aimed at compensating for or compensate for the damage caused by the nonperformance of obligation, in particular, there is a separate provision on liquidated damages, or under the premise that the indemnity is to be compensated as liquidated damages, if there is such circumstance as where the penalty provisions are interpreted as liquidated damages, the penalty shall be deemed as penalty for breach of contract (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da8294, Jul. 14, 2016).

In addition, Article 6 of the Interest Limitation Act is applicable to the default of obligations by the parties for the purpose of money.