A. The meaning of “unfairly excessive case” under Article 398(2) of the Civil Act

B. Whether it is necessary to examine the actual amount of damages to determine whether the estimated amount of damages is unreasonably excessive

(c) Where the original of the judgment with a declaration of provisional execution is served with the false address of the other party, the validity of an assignment order and seizure of claims based thereon;

A. “Where the estimated amount of damages under Article 398(2) of the Civil Act is unreasonably excessive” refers to cases where the estimated amount of damages is unreasonably excessive in light of the concept of the general society in light of the general society in light of all the circumstances such as the obligee and obligor’s status, purpose and content of the contract, the motive behind the scheduled amount of damages, the estimated amount of damages, the ratio of the estimated amount of damages to the amount of debts, the size of expected damages, and

B. In determining whether the estimated amount of damages is unreasonable or unreasonable, it is not necessary to specifically examine the actual amount of damages.

C. If an original copy of the judgment of provisional execution, which is the title of debt, which forms the basis of an assignment order, was served with a false address of the other party, the service is unlawful and invalid, and the other party is still in a state of not being served with the original copy of the judgment. Therefore, the assignment order of claims based on the original copy of the judgment is invalid as it was made without being served with the name of debt as the requirement for commencement of execution.

a.B.Article 398(2) of the Civil Code; Article 490 of the Civil Procedure Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 65Da1420 delivered on September 7, 1965, Supreme Court Decision 75Da1404 delivered on November 11, 1975, Supreme Court Decision 71Da1252 delivered on June 12, 1973

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant Kim Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 85Na2503 decided August 12, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the third ground for appeal:

According to Article 398(2) of the Civil Act, where the estimated amount of compensation for damages is unreasonably excessive, the court may reduce the estimated amount of compensation to a reasonable extent. Here, "unfairly excessive cases" refers to cases where the estimated amount of compensation for damages is unreasonably excessive in light of the concept of the general society in light of all the circumstances such as the status of the obligee and the obligor, the purpose and content of the contract, the motive behind the scheduled amount of compensation for damages, the ratio of estimated amount of damages to the amount of debts, the estimated amount of estimated damages to the amount of debts, the size of expected damages, and the transaction practices at the time, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 65Da1420, Sept. 7, 1965). It is not necessary to examine specifically the actual amount of damages in determining whether the estimated amount of compensation for damages is unreasonably excessive (see Supreme Court Decision 75Da1404, Nov.

As stated in its holding, the court below determined the following facts: (a) the developments and contents of the sales contract of this case between the defendant and the non-party 1; (b) the motive and contents scheduled to compensate for damages; (c) the details of the non-party 1’s default on the obligation of the above non-party 1, the purchaser; and (d) the Plaintiff’s damages therefrom; and (c) according to its confirmed facts, the defendant granted the above non-party 1 the right to sell a commercial building even before the payment of the purchase price was made; and (d) the above non-party 1 was planned to execute construction by appropriating the insufficient construction cost; and (e) there was a lot of damages if the above non-party 1 violated the contract; and (e) the above non-party 1 paid part of the commercial building for the part of the intermediate payment to the defendant; and (e) the defendant was forced to compensate for damages to the victims who entered into the sales contract with the above non-party 1; and (e) the decision of the court below is justified in light of the above legal principles as to reduce the estimated amount of compensation for damages.

2. On the second ground for appeal:

If an original copy of the judgment of the provisional execution sentence, which is the title of debt, which forms the basis of the attachment and assignment order, was served with a false address of the other party, the service is unlawful and invalid, and the other party still has the status of not being served with the original copy of the judgment. Therefore, the attachment and assignment order based on the original copy of the judgment is invalid because it was made without delivering a name of debt as the requirement for commencement of execution.

As duly determined by the court below, if the original copy of the judgment of provisional execution, which is the title of debt, which is the basis of the attachment and assignment order of this case, was served on the non-party 2, not the person living together with the above non-party 1, who is the other party, the above service is unlawful and null and void, and therefore, the attachment and assignment order of this case based on the above original copy of the judgment is also null

Although the reasoning of the judgment below is somewhat insufficient, the conclusion that the attachment and assignment order of this case is null and void is justifiable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the validity of the judgment and assignment order like the theory of lawsuit.

3. On the first ground for appeal:

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below rejected the plaintiff's conjunctive claim on this point on the ground that there is no other evidence to acknowledge it without reliance on the fact that the plaintiff's representative Nonparty 3 agreed to pay the winning amount to the plaintiff by filing a lawsuit against the above non-party 1.

In light of the records, the process and determination of the court below's above evidence cooking are just and there is no illegality in the violation of the rules of evidence or the order of reason, such as the theory of lawsuit.

4. Ultimately, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yellow-ray (Presiding Justice)