2. The reason why the court uses the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the above part is as stated in Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in Article 420 of the same Act.

3. The reasons why this Court has used for the above part are 3. E. the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance.

Except as set forth in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, this part of paragraph (1) (as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act) (as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the first instance judgment from 13 to 22 of the second instance judgment) shall be cited.

As seen earlier, the provisions regarding the amount of damages to be paid by the Defendants to the Plaintiff at the time of termination of the contract in each of the instant contracts can be seen as “predetermination of damages.” However, in cases where the predetermined amount of damages is unreasonably excessive, the court may reasonably reduce the amount of damages. The predetermined amount of damages can be determined by taking into account all the circumstances, such as the status of the obligee and the obligor, the purpose and content of the contract, the motive behind the scheduled amount of damages, the anticipated amount of damages, the ratio of the estimated amount of damages to the amount of debts, the anticipated amount of damages, the expected amount of damages, the transaction practices at the time of the determination, and the economic condition. In such cases, it is not necessary to specifically examine and determine the actual amount of damages in determining whether the predetermined amount of damages is unreasonably excessive, but it is necessary to prepare for the actual amount of damages or the anticipated amount of damages (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da60042, Jan. 27, 2011).