1. The plaintiff's appeal and the defendant's appeal are all dismissed.

2. Of the appeal costs, the part arising from the Plaintiff’s appeal.

1. The reasons stated in this part are as follows, except for partial revision as follows, the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (the “1. Basic Facts” of the suspension of the second page) is the same as that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance. As such, this part is cited by the main text of Article 420

[Revision] The service area “4.” is added to “320 square meters after the third activity inside the framework line at the bottom of the second part of the judgment of the court of first instance. 2. The reasoning for this court’s reasoning is as follows: (a) the pertinent part of the judgment of the court of first instance (the judgment on the occurrence of the obligation to pay penalty for breach of contract for breach of contract for breach of contract for breach of contract for breach of contract for breach of contract for breach of contract for breach of contract for breach of contract for breach of contract for breach of contract for breach of contract

3. Scope of liability to pay penalty, etc.

A. The summary of the parties’ assertion 1) The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that Article 13(1) of the instant service contract (hereinafter “instant penalty clause”).

(2) As the penalty clause of this case is not an estimate of the amount of damages but an agreement for penalty, the penalty calculated pursuant to the penalty clause of this case shall not be reduced in principle, and shall not be deemed null and void in whole or in part contrary to the public order and good morals. Even if the entire penalty clause of this case cannot be seen as an agreement for penalty, the penalty clause of this case is mixed with the nature of the liquidated damages and the penalty agreement, so at least the part falling under the penalty clause of this case can not be reduced. 2) The summary of the defendant's assertion is not the agreement for penalty, but the penalty clause of this case concerns an estimate of the amount of damages. In light of the content of service performed by the plaintiff, the degree of opportunity cost or profit to be lost by the plaintiff when the service contract of this case is destroyed, the penalty amount calculated pursuant to the penalty clause of this case shall be reduced to 15,000,000 won.

(b).