1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On May 1, 2017, the Plaintiff purchased parcels, other than Pyeongtaek-si C, and nine parcels (hereinafter “instant real estate”), owned by the Defendant, from the Defendant, at KRW 14.7 billion, and the down payment of KRW 1 billion was agreed to pay the first intermediate payment of KRW 2 billion on June 26, 2017; the second intermediate payment of KRW 2 billion on August 25, 2017; and the remainder of KRW 9.7 billion on October 30, 2017, respectively.

(2) Article 6 of the sales contract provides that “In the event of a separate agreement, the down payment shall be deemed a penalty,” and the special agreement provides that “In the event of a failure to perform the intermediate payment under this contract, the down payment shall be deemed a penalty, and the seller shall pay the intermediate payment to the buyer and the down payment shall be deemed a penalty.”

B. On May 2, 2017, the Plaintiff paid a down payment of KRW 1 billion to the Defendant.

C. After the agreed date, the Plaintiff failed to pay the intermediate payment and the balance, and according to such nonperformance by the Plaintiff, the Defendant confiscated the said down payment of one billion won as penalty for breach of contract (hereinafter “instant penalty”).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. Although it is acknowledged that one billion won of the down payment was confiscated as penalty due to the Plaintiff’s non-performance of the Plaintiff’s claim, the penalty of this case should be reduced unfairly because the amount of the penalty of this case is excessive.

B. Determination penalty is presumed to be an estimate of the amount of damages (Article 398(4) of the Civil Act). Meanwhile, Article 398(2) of the Civil Act provides that the court may reduce the amount of liquidated damages where the estimated amount of damages is unreasonably excessive. In order for the court to reduce the amount of liquidated damages by unfairly excessive amount, the economic status and economic status of the obligee and the obligor, the purpose and content of the contract, the details and motive of the scheduled amount of damages, the ratio of estimated amount of damages, the amount of estimated damages, the amount of estimated