2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The reasoning of this Court’s reasoning is as follows: (a) the Plaintiff’s assertion emphasized or added in the trial is stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the part that is determined additionally in the following 2.2. Thus, this Court cited it as it is in accordance with the main text of Article

2. Additional determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The contract deposit paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant according to the instant contract for sale in lots is presumed to be liquidated by the agreement of penalty under Article 3 of the instant contract for sale in lots, and the estimated amount of compensation for damages should be reduced unfairly because

(b) Markets:

1) In cases where the estimated amount of damages is unreasonable and excessive (see Article 298(2) of the Civil Act), the court may reduce the estimated amount of damages to a reasonable extent (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da209227, Jul. 24, 2014). In order for the court to reduce the estimated amount of damages to a reasonable extent, it should be deemed that the payment of the estimated amount of damages would result in the loss of fairness by imposing unreasonable pressure on the debtor in the position of the economically weak (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da20927, Jul. 24, 2014).

2) As seen earlier, Article 3 of the instant sales contract provides that the Plaintiff shall pay 10% of the total amount of the supplied price to the Defendant as penalty in the event the instant sales contract is cancelled due to the Plaintiff’s nonperformance of obligation such as delaying the payment of intermediate payment or the balance, etc. As such, it is reasonable to deem that the said contract constitutes an estimate for damages, and there is no assertion or proof as to special circumstances that can be interpreted as a penalty for breach of contract. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the said contract constitutes an estimate for damages.

3) Furthermore, as to whether the estimated amount of compensation for the above damages was unfairly excessive, the following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the purport of the entire pleadings, as to whether the estimated amount of compensation for the above damages was unfairly excessive, are the general transaction practice: ① determining the 10% amount of the purchase price as the down payment in the real estate sales contract and the agreement to pay it as a penalty; ② the estimated amount of compensation for the damages in the instant sales contract also seems not to go beyond the general transaction practice as the down payment equivalent to 10% of the total supply price, and ② the Plaintiff did not pay the intermediate payment and the balance entirely after paying the down payment. The Defendant continued to urge the Plaintiff to pay the intermediate payment and the balance, and the Defendant had to cancel the sales contract in this case at the expiration of more than one year from January 29, 2015, which is the payment date of the remainder as set forth in the instant sales contract; ③ the Defendant sold the instant commercial building to the third party after the cancellation of the sales contract in this case, and the Defendant’s delayed sales expenses incurred for the above delay due to the sale.

4) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Yoon Sung-he

Effect of the judge's lectures