The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 398(2) of the Civil Act provides that where the estimated amount of compensation for damage is unreasonably excessive, the court may reduce the estimated amount to a reasonable extent, and does not exclude the application of the said estimated amount with respect to non-performance of monetary obligation.

In addition, Article 6 of the Interest Limitation Act provides that the court may reduce the amount of compensation to the reasonable amount when it considers that the party's failure to pay the debt for the purpose of money is unfair.

Therefore, if the rate of damages for delay against the delay of the monetary obligation is separately agreed, it shall be considered as the scheduled amount of damages to be reduced.

"Unfair", which is a requirement for reducing the estimated amount of damages, is recognized as cases where the payment of the estimated amount of damages results in the loss of fairness by unfairly pressureing on the debtor who is in the position of the economically weak, in light of the general social concept, in light of all circumstances, such as the status of the creditor and debtor, 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

In particular, if the amount of damages is to be paid for the nonperformance of the monetary obligation, the outline of the above consideration

In addition to lawsuits, ordinary arrears interest rate should be considered.

As such, the reference point for determining whether the estimated amount of damages is unreasonable or the scope of appropriate reduction is when the court makes a specific decision, i.e., the time of closing argument in the fact-finding court.

(See Supreme Court Decision 92Da36212 delivered on January 15, 1993, Supreme Court Decision 97Da15371 delivered on July 25, 1997, Supreme Court Decision 99Da38637 delivered on July 28, 200, etc.). The fact-finding of the grounds for reduction and the determination of the ratio are matters within the exclusive jurisdiction of the fact-finding court, unless the fact-finding or the determination of the ratio is clearly unreasonable in light of the principle of equity.

Supreme Court Decision 2007.12.