A. On December 14, 2016, the Plaintiff concluded a lease deposit of KRW 170 million with respect to the first floor of the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C building No. 103 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant contract”) and paid KRW 17 million to the Defendant on the date of the conclusion of the said contract. Article 7 of the said contract provides that “If the lessee or lessee fails to fulfill the terms of this contract, the other party shall be notified in writing to the lessor and the lessee may claim against the other party for damages arising from the rescission of the contract, and the contractual party may claim against the other party for damages arising from the rescission of the contract, and the contract shall be deemed as the basis for compensation for damages, unless otherwise agreed.”

B. However, around October 14, 2016, prior to the conclusion of the instant contract, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with D on the instant real estate, and accordingly, on December 30, 2016, when D intended to move into the said real estate before the Plaintiff, the instant contract was rescinded as impossible to perform, and the Defendant returned the down payment of KRW 17 million paid to the Plaintiff on January 2, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. We examine the determination as to the cause of the claim. Article 7 of the contract of this case is an estimate of the amount of damages under Article 398 of the Civil Act, and the amount of damages in the event the contract is rescinded due to nonperformance. The fact that the contract of this case was rescinded due to nonperformance due to the defendant's fault is as seen earlier, and therefore, the defendant is entitled to seek reimbursement from the plaintiff, as the plaintiff.