1. The defendant's appeal is all dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the part of the judgment of the first instance, except where the defendant added the judgment as set forth in the following Paragraph 2, as to the argument that the defendant raised an appeal and brought in the trial of the first instance, and thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of

2. Additional determination

A. The defendant's assertion asserts that the court of first instance has excessively reduced the estimated amount of damages.

B. According to Article 398(2) of the Civil Act, where the estimated amount of compensation for damage is unreasonably excessive, the court may reduce it to a reasonable extent. Here, "unfairly excessive case" means cases where the payment of the estimated amount of compensation for damage is deemed to result in the loss of fairness by imposing unfair pressure on the debtor in the position of the economically weak in light of the general social concept, taking into account all the circumstances such as the status of the creditor and the debtor, the purpose and content of the contract, the motive scheduled for the amount of compensation for damage, the estimated ratio of the estimated amount of compensation for damage to the amount of debt, the estimated amount of damage, the size of the estimated amount of damage, and the transaction practices at the time. Meanwhile, in determining whether the estimated amount of compensation for damage is unreasonably excessive or the scope of reasonable reduction is to be determined in accordance with the above provision, the court should comprehensively consider all the above circumstances that occurred between them as of the time of the closing of argument

The fact-finding or determination of the ratio of the grounds for reduction is a matter belonging to the exclusive authority of the fact-finding court, unless it is deemed significantly unreasonable in light of the principle of equity.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Da275402, May 30, 2017). In light of the purpose and content of the instant agency contract, the motive for setting the liquidated damages amount, and the position and forecast of the Plaintiff and the Defendant.