1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

The reasoning of the judgment of this court is identical to that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and such reasoning is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

[1] The Defendant asserts that Article 4 of the Agreement (Evidence A 2) concerning the determination of the amount of damages, not a penalty, should be null and void against the public order and good morals, or that the amount of penalty should be reduced according to the application by analogy of Article 398(2) of the Civil Act or the principle of equity, in light of the following: (a) in a preparatory document on January 13, 2020, submitted after the closing of argument, Article 4 of the Agreement is reasonable to regard the agreement as a penalty. Furthermore, in light of the health class, the language and form of Article 4 of the Agreement, and the intent of preparing the agreement with the parties who are inferred therefrom, it is reasonable to deem the agreement as a penalty. Moreover, inasmuch as the agreement on the penalty for breach of trust is set to secure the performance of obligations, and (b) even if it is a penalty, the amount of penalty cannot be determined by analogy by applying Article 398(2) of the Civil Act, which is excessive, or the amount of penalty for breach of the principle of equity.