The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) by aggregating the principal lawsuit and counterclaim.

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2, the lower court acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning based on the evidence of the recruitment, and determined that the contract No. 2 cannot be deemed to have been rescinded by the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent for rescission due to the Defendant’s cause attributable to the Defendant, and rather, the Defendant’s declaration of intention for cancellation was lawfully rescinded by the Defendant’s declaration of intention for cancellation on May

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles on the rescission or cancellation of a contract, or by failing

2. As to the ground of appeal No. 3, Article 398 (2) of the Civil Act provides that where the estimated amount of compensation for damages is unreasonably excessive, the court may reduce it to a reasonable extent. Here, "unfairly excessive cases" means cases where the payment of the estimated amount of compensation for damages is deemed to result in the loss of fairness by imposing unfair pressure on the debtor who is in the position of the economically weak in light of the general social concept, taking into account all the circumstances such as the status of the creditor and the debtor, the purpose and content of the contract, the motive behind the liquidated amount of compensation for damages, the ratio of the estimated amount of compensation for damages to the amount of debts, the estimated amount of damages, the estimated amount of damages, and the transaction practices at the time, etc. In order to determine whether the estimated amount of compensation for damages is unreasonably excessive or to determine whether the estimated amount of compensation for damages is unfairly excessive or the scope of reasonable reduction is to take

(See Supreme Court Decision 200Da35771, Dec. 8, 2000). The fact-finding and the rate of reduction are very significant in light of the principle of equity.