1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasoning of this court’s reasoning for accepting the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the plaintiff’s assertion added by this court as follows, and thus, it is citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

(A) The court of first instance cannot change the facts or judgments recognized by the court of first instance even if the evidence additionally examined by the court was presented (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2.

A. At the time of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Defendant was in a superior position to force the Plaintiff to pay the penalty provisions for breach of contract, and the penalty for breach of contract was set only for the Plaintiff, the wage remains for about two years and seven months and remains for about two years and seven months until the retirement age unless the Plaintiff voluntarily retires, and the Plaintiff agreed to receive about KRW 67,459,642 as retirement consolation money. The Plaintiff’s wages and retirement allowances, etc. that the Plaintiff wishes to obtain in the instant lawsuit are KRW 41,612,021, and the penalty for breach of contract is more than two times more than two times, and the penalty for breach of contract for breach of contract for breach of contract for breach of contract for breach of contract for breach of public order and good morals is excessively null and void compared to the Plaintiff’s interest derived from the enforcement of the duty. This also constitutes an unfair payment of 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.

B. (1) Determination of a penalty agreement is prescribed to secure the performance of an obligation, and is different from the scheduled amount of damages. Therefore, the amount cannot be reduced by analogical application of Article 398(2) of the Civil Act regarding the scheduled amount of damages. However, if the penalty agreed in comparison with the interests of creditors who forced the obligation to perform is excessively excessive, all or part of it shall be null and void against the public order and good morals.