대여금
The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim added by this court are all dismissed.
2. The expenses after the appeal has been filed.
1. The Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal on the claim for the repayment of loan by the primary claimant cited in the judgment of the court of first instance are not different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and even if each evidence submitted in the court of first instance was presented to this court, the recognition of facts in the court of first instance and the judgment are justified.
Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows: (a) it is so decided by the first instance court on the conjunctive claims added by the plaintiff in this court; and (b) it is so accepted by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Judgment on the conjunctive claim
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that KRW 100 million paid to the Defendant constitutes an estimated amount of compensation for damages, as long as the said amount is determined as penalty even if the down payment of the sales contract was to be paid to the Defendant. Even if the sales contract was rescinded, it shall be reduced by KRW 50 million as there is no actual damage to the Defendant and there is excessive amount of KRW
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff KRW 50 million and delay damages.
B. In order for the 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 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, and economic conditions, etc.
(See Supreme Court Decision 92Da41719 delivered on April 23, 1993, etc.). In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the Plaintiff and the Defendant set the amount of damages for nonperformance as KRW 100 million by introducing the provisions on penalty in the instant sales contract, and the sales contract for real estate.