[2] The case holding that the above paragraph (1) is a ground for reduction of the estimated amount of damages

[2] The case holding that the penalty should be reduced on the ground that the calculation of a buyer's penalty recognized as liquidated damages should be taken into consideration even if the above ground for cancellation or cancellation of a sales contract does not fall under the grounds for cancellation of a sales contract

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Lee Dong-young et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

2. The plaintiffs' remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the plaintiffs and the defendant in the separate sheet (2) shall be divided into two parts, and the remainder shall be the defendant, and the part arising between the plaintiffs and the defendant in the separate sheet (3) shall be five minutes, and such two parts shall be the defendant, and the remainder shall be borne by the above plaintiffs.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or are recognized in full view of Gap evidence 1-1-25, Gap evidence 2-1 through 9, Gap evidence 3-1-3-7, Gap evidence 4-6, 7, 13-1-34, Eul evidence 1-1 through 34, and Eul evidence 1-1-34.

A. On August 192, 192, the Plaintiffs listed in the list of the attached Form (2), as non-employed workers, were the members of the enterprises they work, and the apartment units and numbers entered in the same list among the 1-dong and 3-dong Housing Site Development Apartment-dong, Busan-dong, Busan-do, and 1-dong and 3-dong Housing Site Development apartment (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”) constructed by the Defendant, were sold in lots and paid the down payment and the intermediate payment. On December 12 of the same year, the Plaintiffs listed in the list of the attached Form (3) notified that some of the apartment units of this case are sold in general among the apartment units of this case and paid the down payment and the intermediate payment

B. On October 1, 1993 and November 1, 1993, the plaintiffs cancelled their respective sales contracts and refunded the amount calculated by deducting the amount equivalent to 10/100 of the sales price.

C. Article 8(3) of the above apartment sale contract provides that where the members of the household, including the buyer, move to a foreign country or stay in a foreign country for not less than two years due to the death or declaration of disappearance of the buyer, if all the members of the household, including the householder, intend to move to another administrative district due to work or occupation, if all the members of the household, including the buyer, intend to move to another administrative district due to the death or occupation of the buyer, the buyer must pay 10/100 of the price of the house (the price of the sale) as penalty, i.e., the buyer, if the buyer requests the cancellation of the contract for reasons other than the transfer to another administrative district for the treatment of illness of the householder, and Article 8(5) provides that the buyer may refund the money after deducting the penalty under paragraph (3) from the occupancy deposit, etc. paid by the buyer at the time of the cancellation of the contract.

2. Determination on the plaintiffs' claims listed in the separate sheet (2)

(a) The primary claim

The plaintiffs in the list are the primary cause of claim. Since workers' welfare apartment was constructed for the purpose of improving workers' welfare, the above plaintiffs wish to sell the apartment with the belief that workers' welfare apartment will be favorable to the price conditions or other terms and conditions of sale than the general apartment in lots. In reality, the apartment in this case was constructed and sold at the same time in the same housing site development zone by the defendant, and the apartment in this case was constructed as a construction cost less than that of the same ordinary apartment in lots, and it was far more opened from the facility and material surface (the defendant classified the apartment in this case into the class 4 and the general apartment in the class 4, and the construction cost is less than that of the class 3 in the class 4, the apartment in this case was less than the general apartment in the class 4 and the general apartment in the class 4). Thus, the defendant deceivings the above plaintiffs by selling the apartment in this case at a lower price than

In light of the above facts, Gap evidence 3-1 to 7, Gap evidence 4-3, Gap evidence 5-1 to 14, and the fact inquiry about the Chairman of the Board of Audit and Inspection of this case's apartment sale without witness, two apartment buildings with the sale price of this case's 100,00 won different from that of the general apartment, can be seen as the outside apartment of this case's apartment lot's apartment lot's apartment lot's apartment lot's apartment lot's apartment lot's apartment lot's apartment lot's apartment lot's apartment lot's apartment lot's apartment lot's apartment lot's apartment lot's apartment lot's construction cost's apartment lot's apartment lot's apartment lot's apartment lot's apartment lot's construction cost's apartment lot's apartment lot's apartment lot's construction cost's apartment lot's apartment lot's apartment lot's apartment lot's construction cost's apartment lot's apartment lot's construction cost's apartment lot's apartment lot's construction cost's apartment lot's apartment lot's apartment lot's apartment lot's apartment.

(b) Preliminary claim

As such, the above plaintiffs asserted that the penalty clause should be reduced excessively because they constitute the scheduled amount of damages for nonperformance of their obligation.

On the other hand, the purpose of reducing the estimated amount of damages is to interfere with the contents of the contract in order to remove the substantial inequality between the parties to the contract and guarantee the fairness. In full view of the above admitted evidence and evidence Nos. 4-13 and 14, and the whole purport of oral argument in the witness Y-do, as acknowledged in the above paragraph (a), the apartment of this case is used relatively low quality and facilities compared to the general apartment, and there are many defects in the building. This is discovered through the audit by the Board of Audit and Inspection, and the defendant is recommended by the Board of Audit and Inspection to take compensation measures for the difference between the apartment of this case and the general apartment of this case, and it is reasonable that the above apartment is not sold in consultation with the occupants, and it is reasonable that the above apartment is sold in consultation with the occupants to improve the welfare of each of the above general apartment, and it is reasonable for the defendant to recognize the fact that the above apartment is sold in lots, which is an excessive increase in the sale price of the apartment of this case.

3. Determination as to the plaintiffs' claims listed in the separate sheet (3)

(a) The primary claim

The plaintiffs in the separate sheet (3) stated in the separate sheet stating that the defendant should specify the fact in the sale advertisement while selling the remaining apartment of this case, but it was advertised as if it newly selling the general apartment without specifying the fact in the sale advertisement, and entered into the sale contract of this case with the above plaintiffs who believe it. Thus, the above plaintiffs asserted that the above plaintiffs cancelled the sale contract of this case on the ground of the above defendant's deception and seek the refund of each amount after deducting

Therefore, according to the evidence Nos. 4-13 and 14 of 192, the defendant can be acknowledged that the defendant issued a public notice to sell the unsold housing units in the workers' welfare apartment house to the general public without specifying the unsold housing units on December 1992. However, the defendant's approval of the housing units supplied by the defendant as a workers' welfare apartment or a general apartment unit is classified according to the object of the supply, but the quality of the apartment units does not vary, and the issue of whether the apartment units are unsold in the sale of the apartment units is an incidental matter, not an element of the contract, but an incidental matter, not an element of the contract, but it is difficult to view that the apartment units were unsold in the sale of the apartment units, because the contents can be easily confirmed in advance by the buyer, and therefore it is difficult to deem that there was a fraudulent act. (

Therefore, there is no reason for the above plaintiffs' claims based on this.

(b) Preliminary claim

Meanwhile, the above plaintiffs asserted that the penalty of this case should be reduced excessively, and according to the evidence adopted above, there were several defects in the apartment of this case as stated in the above attached Table (2). The existence of such defects and the circumstance that the defendant did not properly announce the fact that the apartment of this case is the unsold household of workers' welfare apartment in selling the apartment of this case, when considering the existence of such defects and the circumstance that the defendant did not publicly announce the fact that the apartment of this case is the unsold household of workers' welfare apartment of this case, the agreement of the penalty of this case, which is acknowledged as the liquidated damages, is deemed excessive and unfair, so it shall be reduced to 6% of the purchase price of each of the above plaintiffs, and the remaining amount shall be returned to the above plaintiffs, and it is reasonable that the defendant should return the above plaintiffs. Accordingly, the amount of each payment shall be written in the attached Table

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiffs listed in the separate sheet (2) of the same amount of money listed in the separate sheet, each amount listed in the separate sheet (3) of the same amount of money listed in the separate sheet, and each of the amounts listed in the separate sheet (3) of the same amount of money from the day after the delivery of the complaint to the sentencing day of this case, and from the next day to the day after the payment of the complaint, each of the plaintiffs' claims is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and each of the remaining claims is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition (attached Form 1 omitted or 2 omitted).

Judges Cho Jin-tae (Presiding Judge)