All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

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

Article 398(2) of the Civil Code provides that the court may reduce the estimated amount of damages to a reasonable extent where the estimated amount of damages is unreasonably excessive.

The term "unfairly excessive cases" means cases where it is acknowledged that the payment of the estimated amount would result in the loss of fairness by imposing unfair pressure on the debtor in light of the general social norms, such as the status of the creditor and the debtor, the purpose and content of the contract, the anticipated motive for the amount of damages, the ratio of estimated amount of damages to the amount of debts, the estimated amount of damages, the size of the estimated amount of damages, and the transaction practices at that time.

(2) The Defendant and the Defendant agreed to pay the instant down payment, which is equivalent to 10% of the purchase price of the instant case, as a penalty, based on the evidence adopted by the lower court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da73852, Dec. 10, 2004). The lower court acknowledged, based on its adopted evidence, that the Defendant agreed to pay the instant down payment, which is equivalent to 10% of the purchase price of the instant case, pursuant to Article 9(5)

Furthermore, the lower court determined that the amount of penalty of KRW 8,32,304,00 should be reduced to KRW 6,665,843,200 (i.e., KRW 8,332,304,00) on the ground that comprehensively taking account of various circumstances as indicated in its reasoning, such as the nature of the Defendant, the status of the Defendant, the purpose of the instant contract, and the anticipated amount of damages to be incurred by the Defendant upon the rescission of the instant contract, is unreasonable.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below that reduced the penalty by deeming the penalty to be unduly excessive is just and acceptable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below erred by exceeding the bounds of the principle of logic and experience and the principle of free evaluation of evidence, or by misapprehending the legal principles