1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiffs, which orders additional payment, shall be revoked.

1. Paragraph 2 B of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance for the acceptance of this case

Inasmuch as the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is the same as that of the judgment, except for the cases where the title (third) and paragraph (4) ( fifth) are applied as follows, they shall be quoted as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

【The portion of the contract to pay a penalty is deemed to have resulted in the loss of fairness by giving unreasonable pressure to the obligor who is in the economically weak’s position in light of the general social norms, including the status of obligee and obligor, purpose and content of the contract, motive in which the amount of damages is scheduled, the rate of estimated damages, expected amount of damages, transactional practice at that time, and economic condition (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da10382, Jul. 15, 2010). The following circumstances are comprehensively taken into account: (a) where the agreement to pay a penalty is presumed to have been presumed to have been estimated as liquidated damages (see Article 398(2) of the Civil Act); and (b) where the amount of the liquidated damages is unreasonably excessive, the court may reduce it ex officio without any allegations by the parties concerned (Article 398(2) of the Civil Act). Here, “unfairly excessive cases” refers to cases where: (c) where the Plaintiffs, who are the construction company, concluded the agreement to pay the liquidated damages to the Plaintiffs, 1000%, and 400.