1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following additional determinations, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. The Defendant asserts that the Defendant’s claim for reduction of the Defendant’s estimated amount of damages should be reduced unfairly because the penalty stipulated in the instant sales contract is the estimated amount of damages.

On the other hand, in order for the court to reduce the estimated amount of damages to be unfairly excessive, it shall be deemed that the payment of the estimated amount of damages would result in the loss of fairness by unfairly pressure on the debtor who is in the position of the economically weak, as a result of considering the economic status of the creditor and debtor, the purpose and content of the contract, the details and motive of scheduled amount of damages, the ratio of estimated amount of damages to the amount of debts, the expected amount of damages, transaction practices at the time, economic conditions, etc

(See Supreme Court Decision 2014Da209227 Decided July 24, 2014). In light of the following various circumstances revealed in the instant argument, namely, in general, the down payment from a real estate sales contract to 10% of the total purchase price is determined as an estimated amount for compensation. In the instant sales contract, the down payment does not exceed 10% of the purchase price; the instant sales contract entered into the status of nonperformance due to the Defendant’s fault; and the Plaintiff’s loss therefrom does not seem to be significantly different from the estimated amount for compensation as stipulated in the instant sales contract, it does not seem to be excessive.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. The judgment of the defendant's counterclaims against set-off is 50,000 that the defendant shall deliver to L, at the request of the plaintiff, at the time of concluding a sales contract between the defendant and I.