1. The lower judgment’s damages for delay against the remaining Defendants, excluding Defendant AE, are as follows.

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

1. As to the grounds of appeal against the remaining Defendants except Defendant AE

A. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the penalty is presumed to be an estimate of the amount of damages under Article 398(4) of the Civil Act, special circumstances should be proved to prove that the penalty is to be interpreted as a penalty for breach of contract.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da35771, Dec. 8, 2000; Supreme Court Decision 2010Da90562, Jun. 10, 201). Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court rejected the Plaintiffs’ assertion that the instant penalty for breach of contract is penalty for breach of contract, on the grounds that the penalty for breach of contract would be liquidated damages and there is no proof of special circumstances to interpret it as penalty for breach of contract.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there are no errors of misapprehending the legal principles as to the nature of penalty, or of inconsistency in the reasoning of judgment

B. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, Article 398(2) of the Civil Act provides that where the estimated amount of damages is unreasonably excessive, the court may reduce the estimated amount to a reasonable extent.

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.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da73852 delivered on December 10, 2004). The court below held that the status of each party, the process of preparing the instant agreement, and the instant case.