beta
Text
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. If the rate of damages for delay against the delay of the monetary obligation is separately agreed, this is a kind of liquidated damages, which is subject to reduction under Article 398(2) of the Civil Act.
Article 398(2) of the Civil Act provides that the court may reduce the estimated amount of compensation for damages in an unreasonably excessive case. Here, "unfairly excessive case" refers to cases where the payment of the estimated amount of compensation for damages 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 in light of all the circumstances such as the status of the creditor and the debtor, the purpose and content of the contract, the motive behind the liquidated amount of compensation for damages, the ratio of the estimated amount of damages to the amount of debts, the estimated amount of damages, the expected amount of damages, and the transaction practices at the time, etc. In addition, in order to determine whether the estimated amount of compensation for damages is unreasonably excessive and the scope of reasonable reduction is to be determined specifically, the court shall take into account all the above circumstances that occurred between them as of the time of the closing of arguments at the trial court.
(1) The grounds for reduction include the fact-finding or the determination of the ratio of reduction to the lower court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Da36212, Jan. 15, 1993; 97Da15371, Jul. 25, 1997; 9Da38637, Jul. 28, 2000). The fact-finding or the determination of the ratio of reduction to the lower court is a matter within the exclusive jurisdiction of the lower court, unless the principle of equity is deemed considerably unreasonable.
According to the reasoning of the lower judgment on December 13, 2007, the lower court is difficult to view that there was no ground for the Defendant’s assertion of the cancellation, cancellation, etc. of the sales contract until the judgment in the relevant lawsuit becomes final and conclusive, and thus, it is difficult to view that there was no ground for the lower court’s assertion of the cancellation, etc. of the sales contract.