위약금
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
purport.
1. The court's explanation of this case is the same as the statement of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance except for the following parts written or added. Thus, the court's explanation of this case shall be cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
[Supplementary or additional parts] Article 7 of the first instance judgment "The Act on the Establishment and Operation of Private Teaching Institutes and Extracurricular Lessons (hereinafter "the Act on Private Teaching Institutes")" and Article 7 of the Act on the Establishment and Operation of Private Teaching Institutes and Extracurricular Lessons (hereinafter "the Act on Private Teaching Institutes"), the Enforcement Decree and the Enforcement Rule of the Act on Private Teaching Institutes."
Article 15 (8) of the Private Teaching Institutes Act shall be amended to "Article 14 (8) of the Private Teaching Institutes Act" in the fifth letter of the judgment of the first instance.
In the sixth table of the judgment of the first instance court, the term "a teaching school" of the "a teaching school" in the 6th table of the judgment of the first instance shall be limited to the "a temporary teaching instructor" of the 5th class.
In Part 3 of Part 9 of the judgment of the court of first instance, “after presumption,” (the defendant asserts that the agreement of this case is null and void against the public order and good morals as the agreement of penalty for breach of contract, but it is difficult to recognize that there are special circumstances to interpret it as a penalty for breach of contract, the defendant's above assertion based on this premise is without merit.
The "ex officio" in Part 4 of the decision of the first instance shall be deleted.
제1심 판결문 제9쪽 제13행부터 제10쪽 제1행까지의 “3)” 부분을 아래와 같이 고쳐 쓴다. 3) ㈎ 위에서 본 사실들에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면 다음과 같다.
At the time of the conclusion of the instant penalty agreement, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded the instant contract as a brokerage of Do consortiums Co., Ltd. with the purpose of consulting on the sale and purchase of private teaching institutes, and there was no circumstance that either the Plaintiff and the Defendant were relatively disadvantageous in the process of concluding the contract.
The instant contract is the business of the instant private teaching institute.