위약금
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, and this case is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, on the grounds that the court's explanation is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except in the following cases:
2. The part of the judgment below in light of the above legal principles and records, since the plaintiff acquired ownership of the shares of the plaintiff through the plaintiff's public conflict, intimidation, and auction on the forest of this case, the remaining shares are returned to the defendant, and the defendant's other property is not an absolute claim against the defendant, and the claim based on this is not a true claim. However, it is not sufficient to acknowledge the above assertion only with the entries in the evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 5, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.
The Defendant, based on the instant sales contract, received only KRW 54 million and intermediate payment of KRW 56 million from the Plaintiff. Therefore, the penalty for nonperformance of the said sales contract is KRW 164 million, which is the double payment of KRW 180 million and intermediate payment of KRW 56 million, which is the double payment of KRW 114,868,00,000, which is the double payment of the down payment. The Defendant asserted that if the Plaintiff offered KRW 114,868,07, which is distributed to the Plaintiff, the actual amount of the penalty is only KRW 49,131,93,00,000,000,000 and KRW 56,000,000,000 from the Plaintiff. However, in full view of the evidence as seen earlier and the purport of the oral argument as to the Plaintiff’s performance of the instant sales contract, the Defendant issued a promissory note with a face value of KRW 39,00,00 on November 30, 2010.