1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the part which is determined additionally under Article 2.2 of the Civil Procedure Act, is the same as that of the part of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (b) such part is cited as it

2. Additional determination

A. The contract deposit paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant according to the instant contract for sale in lots is presumed to be liquidated damages under Article 3 of the instant contract for sale in lots. Since the estimated amount of compensation for damages is unreasonably excessive, it should be reduced.

B. Article 298(2) of the Civil Act provides that, in cases where the estimated amount of damages is unreasonable, the court may reduce the estimated amount of damages to a reasonable extent (see Article 298(2) of the Civil Act). In order to reduce the estimated amount of damages to a reasonable extent, the court shall consider the economic status of the creditor and the debtor, the purpose and content of the contract, the details and motive behind the scheduled amount of damages, the ratio of estimated amount of damages to the amount of debts, the estimated amount of damages, the estimated amount of damages, transaction practices at the time of the transaction and economic conditions, etc., and it shall be deemed that the payment of the estimated amount of damages would result in the loss of fairness by unfairly pressure on the debtor in the position of the economically weak (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Da20927, Jul. 24, 2014). 200. As seen earlier, Article 3 of the instant pre-sale contract provides that the Plaintiff would pay damages to the Defendant by 10% of the total supply price of intermediate payment or remainder, etc.