beta
Text
The judgment below
Among them, the part on the sale price and the damages for delay of options is reversed, and this part of this case is applied.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. Plaintiff’s ground of appeal
A. If the rate of damages for delay against the delay of the monetary obligation is separately agreed, this is a kind of liquidated damages, which is subject to reduction under Article 398(2) of the Civil Act.
Article 398(2) of the Civil Act provides that the court may reduce the estimated amount of compensation for damages in an unreasonably excessive case. Here, "unfairly excessive case" refers to cases where the payment of the estimated amount of compensation for damages is deemed to result in the loss of fairness by imposing unfair pressure on the debtor 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, the purpose and content of the contract, the motive behind the liquidated amount of compensation for damages, the ratio of the estimated amount of damages to the amount of debts, the estimated amount of damages, the expected amount of damages, and the transaction practices at the time, etc. In addition, in order to determine whether the estimated amount of compensation for damages is unreasonably excessive and the scope of reasonable reduction is to be determined specifically, the court shall take into account all the above circumstances that occurred between them as of the time of the closing of arguments at the trial court.
(See Supreme Court Decisions 92Da36212 delivered on January 15, 1993, 97Da15371 delivered on July 25, 1997, and 99Da38637 delivered on July 28, 200, etc.). The fact-finding of the grounds for reduction or the ratio thereof are, in principle, the matters of the exclusive authority of the fact-finding court, but it is not permitted if it is deemed that it is remarkably unreasonable in light of the principle of equity.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2016Da205779 Decided September 28, 2016, etc.). B.
The judgment below
According to its reasoning, the lower court shall pay the sales price of the instant case or the options construction cost, taking into account the circumstances as stated in its reasoning.