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. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment as to the ground of appeal No. 1 in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, lost fairness against the principle of trust and good faith as it unfairly unfavorable to the Plaintiff.

It is justifiable to determine that it is difficult to view the Plaintiff as constituting a standardized contract clause that unfairly imposes excessive liability on the Plaintiff, and there is no error by misapprehending the legal principles on Articles 6 and 8 of the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions.

In addition, the argument that the provision on forfeiture of the bid bond of this case falls under Article 10 subparagraph 1 of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act and thus null and void is not a legitimate ground for appeal as to the judgment of the court below as it was newly asserted in the appeal

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and records as to the ground of appeal No. 2, the lower court is justifiable to have rejected the Plaintiff’s claim for reduction on the ground that it is difficult to view that the bid bond amount presumed to be liquidated damages was unfairly excessive, based on the circumstances in its reasoning. In so doing, the lower court did not err

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.