The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. misunderstanding of the legal principles on reduction of liquidated damages (Ground of appeal No. 1)

(a) If the liquidated damages for delay are deemed to be unfairly excessive in light of various circumstances, such as the status of the party, purpose and contents of the contract, the motives scheduled for the liquidated damages, the rate of the liquidated damages for delay to the contract amount, the amount of the liquidated damages for delay, the reasons for delay, and the prevailing transaction practices; and

(See Supreme Court Decision 96Da23306 delivered on March 26, 199, etc.). The fact-finding of grounds for reduction and determination of the ratio are matters within the discretionary power of the fact-finding court, unless the fact-finding or determination of the ratio is deemed to be considerably unreasonable in light of the principle of equity

(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Da60136 Decided November 25, 2005, etc.). B.

(1) The lower court acknowledged the following facts.

On June 8, 2006, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to manufacture and supply to KRW 323,40,000,000 (the contract amount as a result of price fluctuations increased to KRW 347,215,635,550, which was increased to KRW 347,215,635,550).

(hereinafter “instant contract”). Under the instant contract, the amount of 60 minutes among the goods subject to the instant contract was set at 36 months from the date of the contract ( June 8, 2009), and the remaining 40 days on June 30, 2010 as the delivery deadline.

On February 2010, the Plaintiff completed the supply of the first 60 minutes.

(2) The lower court calculated the penalty for delay at around KRW 75.1 billion according to the instant contract, and 20% of the penalty for delay was reduced by taking account of various circumstances revealed in the process of concluding and implementing the instant contract.

C. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the reduction of liquidated damages, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.