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

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning after comprehensively taking account of the adopted evidence, and based on its stated reasoning, rejected the Defendants’ assertion that the agreement in this case and the agreement on stock trade, etc. of this case (hereinafter “instant agreement, etc.”) was rescinded on or around December 2006, and determined that the agreement in this case, etc. was lawfully rescinded on or around January 5, 2007 by the Plaintiffs’ notice of cancellation on December 15, 2006, on the ground of the Defendants’ non-performance of contractual obligations.

In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by exceeding the bounds of the free evaluation of evidence.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

A. The agreement on penalty for breach of contract is set to secure the performance of an obligation, and its contents are different from the scheduled amount of damages, so it cannot be reduced by analogical application of Article 398(2) of the Civil Act concerning the scheduled amount of damages. However, if the penalty agreed upon by compulsory performance of the obligation is excessively excessive compared to the interests of creditors, such agreement shall be null and void in whole or in part contrary to public order and morality.

However, in interpreting the area of private autonomy, such as the penalty agreement, through the public order and good morals as a general provision, it shall be very careful, such as comprehensively examining the details and details of the contract.

(Supreme Court Decision 2010Da56654 Decided December 23, 2010 and Supreme Court Decision 2013Da63257 Decided December 26, 2013, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da63257, Dec. 26,

The lower court, despite the business difficulties of K Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “K”), may promptly and clearly make any decision due to the conflict of opinions among its partners.