1. The plaintiffs' appeal and the defendant's incidental appeal are all dismissed.

2. Costs by an appeal and incidental appeal.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance court's decision, in addition to the following modifications or additions, and therefore, this case is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. On No. 5 of the first instance judgment, the portion of which was accepted or added, the “liability” of No. 11 of the first instance judgment shall be calculated by adding “liability” to “liability and fine for negligence to Seoul Regional Tax Office”.

The following shall be added to the 7th sentence of the first instance court, 18th sentence, and the 7th sentence of the 19th sentence of the 7th sentence of the 19th sentence of the 19th sentence of the 19th sentence of the 19th sentence of the 19th sentence of the 19th sentence.

(G) On January 3, 2018, Seoul Regional Tax Office sent a notice of imposition of a fine for negligence of KRW 86,802,300 to the postnatal care center of this case on the grounds that “the duty to issue cash receipts was violated” to the postnatal care center of this case from January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013, and thereafter arrived at the postnatal care center of this case around that time.

From the 8th of the judgment of the first instance court, the 9th to the 9th of the 9th to the 9th of the judgment shall be followed as follows.

The obligation to pay administrative fines to the Seoul Regional Tax Office was found to be a contingent obligation, and there is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiffs paid the instant construction cost and the obligation to pay administrative fines thereafter, the Plaintiffs are liable to compensate for damages equivalent to the transfer price of each of the instant transfer contracts determined as liquidated damages.

(B) As to this, the Plaintiffs asserts that the amount of damages should be reduced unfairly because the amount of damages should be reduced unfairly, in light of each transfer contract of this case and the developments leading up to the conclusion of the contingent debt agreement of this case, the expected amount of damages

According to Article 398 (2) of the Civil Code, "Where the estimated amount of damage compensation is unreasonably excessive, the court may reduce it to a reasonable level." Here, "unfairly excessive case" means the respective positions of the creditor and the debtor, the purpose and contents of the contract.