1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The court's explanation of this case is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following modifications or additions of some contents, thereby citing this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts used or added;

(a) On the 6th sentence of the first instance court, the phrase “each entry of evidence Nos. 10 through 14 of the A” in the 14th sentence shall read “each entry of evidence Nos. 8, 10 through 14 of the A” and the result of this court’s order and reply to the submission of financial transaction information to the new branch office of the Busan Bank.”

(b)in Part VII, following the seventh decision of the court of first instance:

“Before December 18, 2015, the Plaintiff had already obtained approval for the loan of KRW 21 billion from the Busan Bank's new-dong branch pursuant to Article 3 of the terms of the instant sales contract.”

C. Following the third page of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part concerning the new argument that the defendant raised in this court is added.

In light of the fact that the Defendant’s obligation to compensate for damages is recognized, the Defendant asserts that the estimated amount of damages as stipulated in Article 16 of the instant sales contract should be reduced unfairly because the estimated amount of damages under Article 16 of the instant sales contract would be excessive. However, it is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff did not cause any damage due to the cancellation of the instant sales contract (the Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff suffered losses, such as delayed construction of a new factory).

(2) The Defendant’s assertion is not accepted on the ground that there is no evidence to deem that the Defendant’s payment of the estimated amount of compensation for damages would result in the loss of fairness by unfairly pressureing the Defendant, who is an economically weak.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is accepted within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is this.