From August 23, 2014 to September 9, 2016, the lower court’s portion on delay damages for KRW 450,000,000.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, based on the circumstances indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the maturity date of the instant agreement was arrived at around October 2010, since the “the time of the completion of the instant implementation project,” which is the maturity date of the instant agreement, refers to the time the E company obtained a provisional approval for the instant apartment, and the buyer began to move in.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the interpretation of a disposal document, or by misapprehending the facts contrary to logical and empirical rules.

2. On the second ground of appeal, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion that the agreement under the letter of payment in this case constitutes an unfair juristic act as stipulated in Article 104 of the Civil Code and thus null and void, on the grounds that there is no evidence to prove that the letter of payment in this case was prepared and that it was a juristic act of which fairness has been substantially lost.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding unfair legal acts, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding facts contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. As to the third ground for appeal, Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (hereinafter “Litigation Promotion Act”) provides that “Where it is deemed reasonable for an obligor to dispute over the existence of the obligation or the scope of the obligation, before a fact-finding judgment declaring that the obligor has the obligation to perform the obligation is rendered, paragraph (1) shall not apply to the reasonable extent.” As such, Article 3(1) of the Litigation Promotion Act provides for special cases concerning statutory interest rates that constitute the basis for calculating damages due to nonperformance of obligation may be excluded