beta
(영문) 대법원 2015.02.14 2013다64090

소유권이전등기

Text

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, whether the predetermined amount of compensation for damages is unreasonably excessive should be determined by considering all the circumstances, such as the status of the obligee and obligor, purpose and content of the contract, the motive behind the scheduled amount of compensation, the ratio of the estimated amount of compensation to the amount of debts, the expected amount of damages, the transaction practices

In this case, it is not necessary to specifically deliberate and determine the actual amount of damages in determining whether the estimated amount of damages is unreasonably excessive considering the size of damages expected to actually occur, but it is necessary to prepare for the actual amount of damages or the estimated amount of damages in the record.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Da33658, Nov. 10, 1995; 2010Da60042, Jan. 27, 201). According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court determined that: (a) the instant sales contract provides that one party shall compensate for the amount equivalent to 150% of the sales price in the event of nonperformance of a contract; and (b) constitutes an estimate for the amount of damages; and (c) it is reasonable to reduce 150% of the sales price to 10% of the sales price, on the ground that the estimated amount for compensation for damages is unduly excessive.

However, according to the reasoning of the judgment below and the evidence adopted by the court below, ① Defendant B concluded the instant sales contract including not only the instant real estate owned by the Defendants, but also real estate owned by neighboring F, etc., including three parcels of real estate owned by the Defendants, including the subject matter of sale, but also failed to obtain the consent of F, etc. by the agreed date, and eventually, performed the contract only for each of the instant real estate in the amount of KRW 925 million. ② The Plaintiff purchased each of the instant real estate for the purpose of constructing a manufacturing place, etc. by diverting each of the instant real estate, farmland or forest, and Article 1 of the instant sales contract was the Plaintiff.