The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal of paragraph (1) below as follows. Thus, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of

2. Parts to be dried;

As seen earlier, the instant sales contract provides that “In the event the Defendant violates the contract, he/she shall reimburse the amount equal to the down payment with penalty,” which is the purport that the Defendant shall return the down payment received when the Defendant violates the contract and pay the amount equivalent to the down payment with penalty.

The fact that the Defendant already returned KRW 20 million, which is part of the down payment that the Defendant received from the Plaintiffs, is as seen earlier, and the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiffs the amount equivalent to KRW 21 million, which is the down payment of the instant sales contract, as penalty.

However, in general, penalty has the nature of liquidated damages, and Article 398(2) of the Civil Act provides, “Where the estimated amount of damages is unreasonably excessive, the court may reduce it to a reasonable level.” Here, the term “unfairly excessive cases” means cases where the payment of the estimated amount of damages is deemed to result in the loss of fairness by imposing unfair pressure on the debtor in the position of the economically weak in light of the general social norms, taking into account all the circumstances such as the position of the contracting party, purpose and content of the contract, motive behind the liquidated amount of damages, the estimated amount of damages, the ratio of estimated amount of damages to the amount of the damages, the size of estimated damages, and the transaction practices at the time.

In determining whether the estimated amount of compensation for damages is unfairly excessive or the scope of appropriate reduction according to the application of the above provisions, that is, when the court makes a decision specifically, at the time of closing argument in the fact-finding court.