The part against the defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Suwon District Court Panel Division.

1. In order for a court to reduce the estimated amount of damages to be unfairly excessive, it should be deemed that the payment of the estimated amount of damages would result in the loss of fairness by unfairly pressure on the debtor who is in the position of the economically weak, as a result of taking into account the economic status of the creditor and the debtor, purpose and content of the contract, the scheduled amount of damages, the details and motive of the scheduled amount of damages, the ratio of estimated amount of damages to the amount of debts, the expected amount of damages, transaction practices at the time, economic conditions, etc., and there is insufficient reason that the estimated amount of damages would result in the loss of fairness from the conclusion of the contract to the cancellation

(See Supreme Court Decision 90Da14478 delivered on March 27, 1991, and Supreme Court Decision 92Da41719 delivered on April 23, 1993, etc.). 2. A.

citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, the lower court upheld the judgment of the first instance, which reduced the amount of damages to KRW 10,00,000,00 on the ground that the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s contract amounting to KRW 52,00,000,00 as the amount of damages for nonperformance under the instant lease agreement was unfairly excessive considering the circumstance that the instant lease agreement was rescinded for three days from August 5, 2012, which was the remaining payment date.

B. However, the following circumstances revealed by the record are common transaction practices to determine the amount equivalent to 10% of the deposit for lease in a real estate lease agreement as a down payment, and to enter into an agreement as a penalty. The estimated amount of damages in this case also does not deviate from general transaction practices as the down payment equivalent to 10% of the deposit for lease, which is the same as the down payment equivalent to the total amount of the deposit for lease. ② The largest reason for the cancellation of the lease contract in this case is the Plaintiff’s attempt to illegally move in without permission without paying the remainder of the deposit for lease, and as the Defendant did not allow the occupancy, the Defendant