분양대금
The judgment below
Of course, interest is paid in lieu of damages for delay and principal and interest of part payments on the purchase price and options construction cost.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. As to the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal Nos. 1 and Defendant A’s ground of appeal No. 1 as to the sale price and delay damages on options construction cost
A. If the rate of damages for delay against the delay of the monetary obligation is separately agreed, this is a kind of liquidated damages, which is subject to reduction under Article 398(2) of the Civil Act.
Article 398(2) of the Civil Act provides that the court may reduce the estimated amount of compensation for damages to a reasonable extent where the estimated amount of compensation for damages is unreasonably excessive. Here, the term “unfairly excessive cases” refers to cases where the payment of the estimated amount of compensation for damages is deemed to result in loss of fairness by imposing unfair pressure on the debtor in the position of the economically weak and causing unfair pressure in light of the general social concept, taking into account all the circumstances such as the position of the creditor and debtor, purpose and content of the contract, the motive behind the liquidated amount of compensation for damages, the ratio of estimated amount of damages to the amount of debts, the estimated amount of damages, the estimated amount of damages, and the transaction practices at the time, etc. In addition, in order to determine whether the estimated amount of compensation for damages is unreasonably excessive and the scope of reasonable reduction thereof according to the application of the above provision, the court shall specifically take into account all such circumstances
(See Supreme Court Decisions 92Da36212 delivered on January 15, 1993, 97Da15371 delivered on July 25, 1997, and 99Da38637 delivered on July 28, 200, etc.). The fact-finding of the grounds for reduction or the ratio thereof are, in principle, the matters of the exclusive authority of the fact-finding court, but it is not permitted if it is deemed that it is remarkably unreasonable in light of the principle of equity.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2016Da205779 Decided September 28, 2016, etc.). B.
The judgment below
reasons.