1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is that it is insufficient for the plaintiff to admit the plaintiff's assertion. The court's explanation concerning this case is that it stated the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance except for using Gap's 2-Ra and Ma (Nos. 6-7 and 7-13 of the judgment of the court of first instance) as follows. Thus, it is consistent with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

【The part of the contract shall be null and void inasmuch as the Plaintiff’s exclusion of the amount equivalent to the penalty from the amount equivalent to 3% annual interest under the refund provision of this case is contrary to the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions. As such, the Plaintiff asserts that not only KRW 34,626,728, which the Defendant did not claim payment from the owner, but also KRW 3% interest of 3% per annum on the amount equivalent to the penalty should be deducted. Article 9 of the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions provides that “any of the terms and conditions prescribed concerning the cancellation or termination of a contract shall be null and void.” Article 9 provides that “a clause that unreasonably reduces the duty to restore or compensate for damages due to the cancellation or termination of a contract” under subparagraph 4 provides that “a clause that unreasonably reduces the duty to restore or compensate for damages due to the cancellation or termination of a contract shall be paid in addition to the legal interest from the date on which the contract was received pursuant to Article 548(2) of the Civil Act, which excludes the duty to return money already received due to the contract cancellation shall be deemed null and void.