1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid in addition to the following shall be revoked.

The reason why a party member who cited the judgment of the court of first instance states this case is the same as the entry of the judgment of the court of first instance in addition to the following parts concerning the determination of reduction of the estimated amount of damages and the conclusion in relation to the reduction of the estimated amount of damages as stated between the 10th anniversary of the 10th session of the judgment of the court of first instance and the 11th session, and therefore, it is acceptable as it is in accordance

The damages for delay stipulated in the construction contract of this case for the reduction of the liquidated damages refer to the cases where it is deemed that the payment of the estimated damages results in the loss of fairness by unfairly pressure on the debtor who is in the position of the economically weak in light of the general social concept in light of all the circumstances such as the status of the creditor and the debtor, purpose and content of the contract, motive and contents of the amount of the damages, the scheduled amount of the damages, the ratio of the estimated amount of the damages, the estimated amount of the damages, the size of the expected damages, and the transaction practices at the time of the settlement of the fact-finding proceedings (Article 398(2) of the Civil Act). On the other hand, in order to determine whether the estimated amount of the damages for delay is unreasonably excessive and the scope of the reasonable reduction is to be determined, the court should comprehensively consider all the aforementioned circumstances that occurred at the time of the settlement of the arguments at the fact-finding proceedings, i.e., when the court makes a decision in detail.

After submitting an application for completion of the above-mentioned circumstances, namely, the above-mentioned evidence and evidence No. 7, the defendant, before approving completion, had already completed the overall process at the time of submission of the completion report, such as holding a professional camping-gu pilot game in the Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, and 3 days.