A case where the estimated amount of damages has been reduced unfairly as excessive;

In light of the fact that the predetermined amount of compensation for damages in the case of nonperformance of a contract at the time of the conclusion of a sale contract is returned within one month after the Defendants received the down payment, it is reasonable to reduce the predetermined amount by KRW 2.5 million.

Article 398 of the Civil Act

November 11, 1975, 75Da1404 delivered on November 11, 1975 (Supreme Court Decision 11055 delivered on November 11, 1975, Supreme Court Decision 23Third citizen 70 delivered on Supreme Court Decision, Supreme Court Gazette 398 delivered on July 398, 525 delivered on court gazette 8701)

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and one other

Daegu District Court (80Gahap506)

(1) The part of the original judgment against the Plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to pay is revoked.

(2) The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 2,500,000 and the amount at the rate of five percent per annum from April 15, 1980 to the full payment.

(3) The plaintiff's remaining appeal is dismissed.

(4) The costs of lawsuit shall be divided into three parts through the first and second trials, and such two parts shall be borne by the Defendants, and the remainder by the Plaintiff.

(5) Paragraph (2) can be provisionally executed.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 5,00,000 and the amount at the rate of five percent per annum from April 15, 1980 to the full payment.

Costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Defendants in both the first and second instances, and a declaration of provisional execution.

The plaintiff reduces the claim of the damages for delay in the trial.

On February 29, 1980, the Plaintiff agreed on the above 30th anniversary of the establishment of the above 10-year rental contract (number 1 omitted) and 692 square meters of miscellaneous land and the above 259-year rental contract (hereinafter the above 200-year rental contract) with the Defendants on the same 30th anniversary of the above 10-year rental contract, and purchased approximately 5,000 won of the above 32,31,00 won of the above 30-year rental contract, and paid 15,00,000 won of the intermediate payment to the Defendants on March 31 of the same year, and there is no dispute between the Defendants that the above 10-year rental contract and the above 30-year rental contract were cancelled, and the Defendants did not receive the above 12,31,000 won of the above 10-year rental contract and the above 10-year rental contract were cancelled.

In the above sales contract, the defendants agreed to promptly return the down payment that the defendants received when it is difficult for the defendants to cancel the above registration established in the real estate of this case to the plaintiff and cancel the contract. Thus, the above contract was rescinded by the defendants' expression of intent of cancellation on March 26, 1980, and even if it is not possible to cancel the above registration, the above contract was rescinded by the plaintiff's consent to the defendants' proposal on the above day when the cancellation of the above contract was impossible. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case was unjust. However, since there is no evidence to acknowledge the defendants' assertion of oral agreement or the cancellation of the agreement, the defendants' assertion cannot be accepted.

Therefore, it is obvious that the above contract violated the above contract is the defendants in light of the above facts of recognition, and the above contract was cancelled by the plaintiff's expression of intent for cancellation. The defendants are obligated to pay the plaintiff the above amount of KRW 5,000,000 calculated as damages for the non-performance of the contract. Meanwhile, in light of the amount of the above sales price and the fact that the defendants returned the above down payment within one month after the defendants received the above down payment, it is reasonable to reduce the amount of KRW 2,50,000, and therefore, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the plaintiff the amount of KRW 2,50,000 and the damages for delay of the plaintiff's claim against the above amount of KRW 2,50,000. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is justified to the extent recognized above, and the remaining claims shall be dismissed by unjust means.

Therefore, the part against the plaintiff in the original judgment which differs from this conclusion is unfair, and the plaintiff's appeal is reasonable only for this part, so the original judgment is revoked within the above limit, and the remaining appeal by the plaintiff is dismissed without any reasonable ground. It is so decided as per Disposition by applying Article 96, Article 89, Article 92, Article 93 of the Civil Procedure Act and Article 199 of the Provisional Execution Act with respect to the burden of litigation costs, and Article 19 of the same Act with respect

Judges fixed ticket (Presiding Judge) Mobile Engines