1. The part against the plaintiff falling under the following order of payment among the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked:

The defendant.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance (except for the portion of 4. conclusion) except for the Plaintiff’s addition of the judgment on the additional argument in the trial. Thus, this is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s additional assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant cancelled the instant sales contract and confiscated the down payment as the scheduled amount of damages for reasons of the Plaintiff’s failure to pay the remainder and to accept the registration of transfer of ownership, and that the said down payment should be reduced by 22 million won and returned to the Plaintiff.

B. Article 398(2) of the Civil Act provides that where the estimated amount of compensation for damages is unreasonably excessive, the court may reduce the estimated amount of compensation to a reasonable extent. Here, "unfairly excessive case" means cases where the payment of the estimated amount of compensation for damages is deemed to result in the loss of fairness by imposing unfair pressure on the debtor in the position of the economically weak in light of the general social concept, taking into account all the circumstances such as the status of the creditor and the debtor, the purpose and content of the contract, the motive behind the liquidated amount of compensation for damages, the ratio of estimated amount of damages to the amount of debts, the estimated amount of damages, the expected amount of damages, and the transaction practices at the time, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Da33658, Nov. 10, 1995; 95Da42393, Feb. 27, 1996). Meanwhile, in determining whether the estimated amount of compensation for damages is unreasonably excessive or the scope of reasonable reduction thereof is to be considered at the time of closing of pleading.

(See Supreme Court Decision 92Da36212 delivered on January 15, 1993). We examine the sales contract of this case.