○ ○

2. Kim○-○

○ ○

[Defendant-Appellant] Park ○, ○○, and Gyeong○, Counsel for defendant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-

Sung-nam-si, Sungnam-dong 175

Representative President Park Jae-ok

Law Firm ○○, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 and 3 others

Attorney Kim Jong-hoon et al.

2. The defendant: 4,00 won 4, 172, 40 won ; 3,564, 100 won ; 4,072, 300 won ; 51, 52, 124, 125 won ; 328, 350 won ; 9, 16, 21, 222, 43, 56, 57, 57, 86, 96, 86, 96, 17, 30 through 47, 165, 28, 29 through 57, 163, 165, 27, 305, 165, 105, 129, 1329, 140, 142, 167, 305, 168, 167, 37, 1663

3. The appeal as to the primary claim and the remaining conjunctive claim by the designated parties in paragraphs (1) and (38, 40, 71, 92, 113, 128, 130, 131, 135, 135, 137, 153, and 154 of the annexed list of the designated parties shall be dismissed, respectively.

4. The total costs of the lawsuit between the plaintiffs (designated parties) and the designated parties mentioned in paragraphs (1) and the defendant are five minutes, and the remaining costs are borne by the plaintiffs (designated parties) and the aforementioned designated parties, respectively, and the defendant's remaining costs are borne by the defendant. The costs of appeal against the defendant of the designated parties mentioned in the attached list 38, 40, 71, 92, 92, 113, 128, 130, 131, 135, 137, 153, and 154 are borne by the aforementioned designated parties.

5. Paragraph 2 can be provisionally executed.

7, 632,00 won, 7, 489, 000 won, and 137 set forth in the separate list 168 of the Selections list

7,258,00 won, 6, 763, 000 won, 51, 52 of the same list to the designated persons described in 149 of the same list;

124, 125 3, 590, 500 , 153, and 154 , each of them shall be

3, 417, 00 won, list 9, 10, 16, 21, 22, 26, 43, 54, 56, 57, 59, 71, 85, 96, 105, 118 of the same list;

123, 128, 129, 132, 135, 140, and 142 (hereinafter referred to as "24 square designated parties")

each of 6,834,00 won, plaintiffs (designated parties) Kim ○, and the list 3 through 8, 11 through 15, 17

The term "20, 23 through 25, 27 through 30, 32 through 50, 53, 55, 58, 60 through 66, 68 through 70, 72

A through 76, 78 through 84, 86 through 95, 97 through 104, 106, 107, 109 through 117, 119 through 119.

122, 126, 127, 130, 131, 133, 136, 138, 139, 141, 143 through 148, 151, 152, 155 through 155.

166, 169 through 175, each of the designated parties (hereinafter referred to as "34 square designated parties") shall be appointed respectively.

7,181,00 won and each of the above amounts shall be sentenced from the next day after the delivery of a copy of the complaint in this case.

5% per annum and 20% per annum from the following day to the day of full payment, respectively.

D. (The Plaintiffs shall pay damages due to default and tort claims.

Although it is compatible, a claim is filed with the order of priority in the form of a main claim and a preliminary claim.

The following facts are without dispute between the parties, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 3-1, 2, Eul evidence 4, Eul evidence 5-1 through 3, Gap evidence 5-1 through 6-8, Gap evidence 9-1, 2, Gap evidence 10, Gap evidence 11-1 through 10, Gap evidence 12-1 through 167, Gap evidence 14-1, 15-1 through 37, Eul evidence 15-1, 18-1 through 37, Eul evidence 4, Eul evidence 7, Eul evidence 8, Eul evidence 5-1 through 8, the testimony of the witness of the first instance court, the head of the management office of the first instance, the head of the office of the office of the village management office of the apartment complex, the fact inquiry of the whole purpose of arguments against each apartment complex.

1. ① The designated parties listed in the list of the plaintiffs and the designated parties listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff et al.") excluding 12 designated parties listed in the list of the designated parties listed in the separate sheet 38, 40, 71, 92, 113, 128, 130, 131, 135, 137, 153, and 154 (hereinafter referred to as "designated parties"), among the designated parties listed in the separate sheet 38, 40, 71, 92, 128, 130, 131, 135, 135, 137, 153, and 154 (hereinafter referred to as "designated parties"), shall be the designated parties (hereinafter referred to as "designated parties"), who purchase one household among the newly designated parties in the separate sheet 972, 190, 2006, 3016.

10. 23. 23. The Appointors 92. 20 December 2005. The Appointors 113. 0. 10. 205. The Appointors 128. 205.

3. 31., 130, 130, 131, 131, 206, 135, 2006, 135, 2006

10. 27. 27. The Selection 137. 10. 10. The Selection 153 and 154. The Selection 154 purchased each apartment as stated in the annexed list address column from the buyer on November 7, 2006. The defendant is the executor who newly constructed and sold the apartment of this case.

1 ② The apartment of this case consists of 34 square meters (84m), 978 square meters, 24 square A (59m square meters) 732 households, 24 square B (59m square meters) 108 households.

③ The Defendant advertised for the sale of the apartment of this case according to the model house, etc., and the details of the guide book for sale and the model house related to this case are as follows:

○ Installation of a e-porizontal suspender room

000 square-type A (84m): 3BAY, electric performance room, bathing room 2, and 24m square-type A (59m square-type A): 3BAY, electric performance room, bathing room 2, and expanded balcony-type B (59m square-type B): adoption of three rooms, electric performance room, and bathing room 2. Extension-type balcony 2.

○ Provision of the basis for the complete space

○ The front section is the same color as the front section and broom pattern as the front section, and the corridor part is marked separately from the front section by using other colors, and the front section is marked in the front section (the front section of the model house was installed with a broom, etc.).

According to ○○ floor plan and illumination, the electric room part (hereinafter referred to as the “electric room of this case”) is located between the entrance of each household and the front corridor of the elevator entrance, the entrance door and the bathing room (1) external wall are installed, and there is a lighting window in part of the outer wall of the bathing room abutting on the electric room.

④ 입주자모집공고 및 분양안내책자 등 분양광고물, 분양계약서에는 ( ① ) 34평형 : 전용면적 84. 98㎡ ( 25. 71평 ) → 거실 25. 80m, 침실 ( 1 ) 14. 19m, 침실 ( 2 ) 8. 60m, 침실 ( 3 ) 9. 30m, 주방 및 식당 14. 70m, 욕실 ( 1 ) 4. 25m, 욕실 ( 2 ) 4. 86㎡, 현관 2. 30m, 반침 0. 98㎡, ( L ) 24평형 ( A ) : 전용면적 59. 99㎡ ( 18. 15평 ) ⇒ 거실 18. 81㎡, 침실 ( 1 ) 11. 11㎡, 침실 ( 2 ) 6. 93m, 침실 ( 3 ) 5. 69㎡, 주방 및 식당 8. 04㎡, 욕실 ( 1 ) 4. 25m, 욕실 ( 2 ) 2. 30m, 현관 1. 89m, 반침 0. 97m, ( c ) 24평형 ( B ) : 전용면적 59. 98m² ( 18. 14평 ) ⇒ 거실 18. 22m, 침실 ( 1 ) 12. 00m, 침실 ( 2 ) 7. 14㎡, 침실 ( 3 ) 6. 00㎡, 주방 및 식당 8. 37㎡, 욕실 ( 1 ) 4. 07m², 욕실 ( 2 ) 2. 11㎡, 현관 2. 07m로 각 기재되어 있다 .

In the meantime, according to the actual situation in which the apartment building in this case is completed and delivered to the buyer, part of the bathing room's outer wall abutting to the power room is constructed with a glass block which functions as a sunlight hold, and each apartment unit is equipped with a string room in front of the present generation of the apartment unit, and there is an electric power boat which can install a string box in front of the power room and corridor's boundary, and the above electric power boat is provided by the defendant at the cost of 50,000 won per household. In addition, the electric power boat, which can install lighting facilities, is installed in connection with each household, is connected to each household, so if it is installed, it cannot be seen as any other apartment that has no electric power boat connected to the lighting facility in common part.

④ The occupancy of the apartment of this case was made between November 5, 2004 and December 4, 2004. The question is defective in the question as to whether the buyers from around August 2004, to the front room on the Defendant’s Internet homepage, and the Defendant did not have a front door on the model house at the time of sale, the area of the front room was divided into other public areas in calculating the area, and the exclusive area of the apartment of this case was increased if the door is installed in the front room, and there is no benefit from tax reduction or exemption or installation of the front room in accordance with the method of lawsuit after the occupancy.

The answer was made to the effect that it will be dealt with.

7) The Plaintiff et al. installed a door in the front room of each household, and installed a door in the front room of the apartment of this case to the Plaintiff et al. on February 7, 2007, and used it as the same section for exclusive use. On the ground that the utility market violated the provisions of Article 42 of the Housing Act by illegally occupying and using the front section of the apartment of this case by illegally installing a door in the front room of the apartment of this case to the Plaintiff et al. on March 7, 2007, the order of restoration to the original state by March 7, 2007, ordering the Plaintiff et al. to impose a non-performance penalty pursuant to Article 83 of the Building Act, and the Plaintiff et al. removed all the front section except for two households, such as Song○, ○○, and ○○, and Lee (a ○○ et al.).

2. The plaintiffs' assertion

The Defendant advertised as if each household that purchased the apartment of this case provides a pre-use room exclusively, but actually did not provide such pre-sale room. (1) In the first place, even though the sales contract was concluded to supply pre-use rooms exclusively available between the buyer and the Defendant according to the above advertisement, it constitutes nonperformance due to the Defendant’s breach, and ( L) as preliminary, such false advertisement constitutes a tort, even if the contents of the above advertisement did not become the contents of the sales contract.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the buyer the expenses for the restoration of the original state and the expenses for the installation of the bathing room after removing the construction expenses and the installation of the bathing room as compensation for the damages incurred thereby. The buyer, who is a sectional owner, has the obligation to pay the buyer the compensation equivalent to the above expenses as compensation for damages in lieu of the defect repair in accordance with the defect security seizure right under Article 9 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings. In addition, since the plaintiff et al. suffered mental suffering due to the defendant's above acts, the defendant shall also pay the plaintiff et al.

3. Judgment on the main claim

Since a contract for sale in lots concluded without properly specifying external type, material, etc. on an apartment subject to the contract for sale in lots, it shall not be deemed that it has been completed as its own.

Although the contents of the sale advertisement, the condition of the model cargo, or the explanation given by the seller to the buyer at around that time, etc. is merely merely an inducement for the offer, it shall be deemed that the buyer trusted out the specific terms and conditions of the advertisement, i.e., the external form and quality of the apartment, etc., and in light of social norms, he/she concluded the sale contract with the trust of the buyer and knew of the buyer. Thus, barring special circumstances, such as the buyer's reservation of objection otherwise at the time of the sale contract, it shall be deemed that there was an implied agreement between the buyer and the buyer to make the sale contract as the content of the sale contract (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da5812, 5829, 5836, Jun. 1, 2007).

Therefore, according to the above legal principles, as to whether the Defendant is obligated to provide the pre-sale room that can be exclusively used by each household as the content of the pre-sale contract, the Defendant has a contractual obligation to build the pre-sale room and provide the pre-sale room to the buyer by constructing the pre-sale room. However, the above pre-sale guide or model house can not be found to include the pre-sale room in the exclusive residential area as alleged by the Plaintiffs, i.e., the pre-sale residential area, and the pre-sale residential area, and the pre-sale residential area of the pre-sale residential area, such as the pre-sale guide or the pre-sale residential area, and the pre-sale residential area of the pre-sale residential area, including the pre-sale residential area and the pre-sale residential area, and the pre-sale residential area including the pre-sale residential area including the pre-sale residential area including the pre-sale residential area including the pre-sale residential area and the pre-sale residential area including the pre-sale residential area and the pre-sale residential area with the installation of the pre-sale residential area and the pre-sale residential area.

Therefore, as long as the defendant provided the same location and type of electric room as that indicated in the sale guide book or model house to the purchaser as common use area, it cannot be said that the purchaser failed to comply with the contents of the sale contract, the primary argument of the plaintiff et al. is without merit without further review.

4. Determination on the conjunctive claim

A. The establishment of tort liability (1) In the case of multiple buyers

In the modern industrialization society, most information about the quality, price, etc. of goods owned by consumers is bound to depend on the advertisements of producers and distributors. In particular, regarding matters concerning the structure, area, etc. of apartment buildings constructed and sold by large enterprises such as the defendant, the credibility and expectation of the contents of the apartment advertisement is higher than the truth of the apartment advertisement. In such a case, the trust and expectation of the general public should be protected.

In full view of the following circumstances revealed in the above facts, the defendant made an advertisement that could mislead the buyers of the apartment of this case to believe that each of the apartment buildings of this case can exclusively use the whole room. It is reasonable to deem that the defendant made a deception as it constitutes a case where the defendant made a false notification on important matters in the transaction in a manner that is to be criticized in light of the duty of good faith in light of the duty of good faith and good faith. Even if the defendant's false advertisement did not reach the deception, it is judged that the number of buyers who purchased the apartment of this case mispercing the nature of the whole room by advertising the fact differently or excessively excessively unfasible advertisement, and it is unlawful as an unfair advertisement that interferes with fair trade order.

First, in the sale guide book, "the word "the whole-type front room" is inserted, the floor plan is the same color as the front section and the broom pattern as the front section, the corridor was marked separately from the front section by other colors, and the broom section was written in the front section and the broom was installed in the front section and the broom was installed in the model house. In light of the fact that the buyers are highly likely to be judged by the display of the floor plan indicating the number as to whether the front section is included in the exclusive part, rather than through the calculation of various detailed items indicating the number, it is sufficient to see that the above advertisement is a space that causes exclusive use of the front section.

Second, it is sufficient to accept that each household's entrance is not a mere purpose to inform itself of the fact that he/she is able to use the front of his/her household, but a special space unlike that of his/her ordinary co-ownership. Furthermore, as the buyers who are not accurately aware of the legal character of the section for exclusive use and the part for common use, it is more likely to be misunderstood as a space where he/she is able to exclusively use the front room as a space where he/she is able to exclusively use the front room by the above advertisement, since it is more likely to mislead them as a space where he/she is able to exclusively use the front room by the above advertisement.

Third, in light of the fact that there is a philophone gambling on the side immediately adjacent to the front door, in order to install a philophone gambling in the outside where the electric room is to be located separately, it is sufficient to recognize that the electric room is scheduled to be installed in the front room from the standpoint of several buyers, in view of the fact that the electric room is a corridor where others can have access, but the electric room is a space where others can have access, but it is installed a window of a glass block which functions as a sunlight on the front room outside wall, and that the electric lighting facility of the electric room is connected to the electric line in the section of exclusive ownership, unlike other co-ownership parts, it is sufficient to recognize that the electric room is scheduled to be installed in the front room from the standpoint of several buyers.

Therefore, the defendant is liable for compensating the buyer for damages caused by such false advertisements.

(2) In the case of a purchaser

The reason for the buyer's claim is that the advertisement of the exclusive use of the previous room becomes the content of the sales contract, and it is based on the premise that such exclusive use is not a defect, it is a claim for damages in lieu of defect repair in accordance with the right of warranty of defect under Article 9 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings in the status of a person holding a sectional ownership of an aggregate building as of the present aggregate building, and that the advertisement of the exclusive use of the previous room cannot be deemed as being incorporated into the contents of the sales contract. Therefore, the above argument is without merit.

However, these arguments include the assertion that they suffered loss due to the defendant's fraudulent advertising act as the purchaser of the apartment house from the purchaser, which is to promote the conclusion of the sales contract with sufficient recruitment of the purchaser and the sales advertisement for the purpose of facilitating the conclusion of the sales contract. The content of the advertisement has the nature of inducing the purchase. The direct counter-party is the purchaser, and the purchaser is only the purchaser, and the purchaser is merely the purchaser, and the purchaser is not the direct counter-party of the act of deception or false advertising. However, the time when the purchaser purchased the apartment house of this case from March to November 2006 to four years after the date of the sales contract, it is difficult to view that the purchaser concluded a sales contract with the defendant's trust and paid expenses for the exclusive use of the previous room as the exclusive space, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this.

Therefore, the defendant's false advertising act does not constitute a tort against the designated purchasers, or it cannot find a proximate causal relationship between the damages claimed by the designated purchasers and the false advertising. Therefore, the defendant's assertion of the designated purchasers is without merit.

(b) Limitation of liability;

As seen earlier, the public announcement of the apartment of this case and the written contract for the sale in lots specifically stipulate the area of each room which constitutes the exclusive residential area and the exclusive residential area of each room, and the exclusive residential area corresponding to the combined area of each room is not included in the area of the previous room, and there was the defendant's answer to the purport that it is impossible for some buyers to ask about whether the previous room can be installed in the prior website prior to the occupancy, so the number of buyers should have taken measures to prevent damages, such as consultation with the competent administrative agencies or legal experts about whether the exclusive use of the previous room is possible, but they should have failed to do so. Such errors are also caused by the defendant's false advertising act in addition to the damages and expansion. However, the defendant's compensation should be taken into account in calculating the amount of damages to be paid by the defendant, but the ratio of the designated persons who contributed to the damage of this case in light of the above facts should be limited to 30%, and the defendant's liability should be limited to 70%.

(1) Part 3: (1) The expenses (1) incurred in performing interior works, such as the installation of doors by households for exclusive use (2) and the removal of facilities installed by the above construction (2) are acknowledged as proximate causal relation (4) but the charges for compelling compliance are not yet imposed and it is inevitable to be removed in the future. (2) The expenses are 00 won, 30 won, 40 won, 200 won, 30 won, 40 won, 40 won, 200 won, 30 won, 40 won, 30 won, 40 won, 40 won, 4

The plaintiff et al. sought payment of 100,00 won per household on the ground that the window of a bath room is inferior and has a possibility of escape, etc., but there is no evidence to acknowledge that there is such defect at the window of a bath room, and it is difficult to view it as damage in proximate causal relation with the defendant's false advertising. (3) The above assertion is not accepted. (4,389,000 won for the selected person ( = 4,389,000 x 70%) (4) : 2,564,100 won ( = 3,63,000 won x 70% x 30% x 40% x 70% x 30% x 46% x 47% x 70% x 30% x 40% x 74% x 70% x 44% x 50% x 74% x 50% x 27

The defendant has a duty to protect the buyers from mental suffering caused by the defendant's act of false advertising as above. Furthermore, considering that the sales contract was concluded with health class and the expectation that the buyers can exclusively use the pre-sale room by establishing the pre-sale room, and then the pre-sale contract was concluded, the pre-sale door was installed in the pre-sale room. However, such an act was in violation of the related Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Housing Act, and the removal of the pre-sale room and the interior, etc., so the expectation at the time of the sales contract was broken and the charge for compelling execution was imposed, and the pre-sale purchaser was allowed to move into the apartment of this case with high trust in the defendant's advertisement and moved into the apartment of this case with the trust of the pre-sale, and its trust was damaged as the structure of the pre-sale apartment of this case did not reach the level expected by the advertisement, the amount of consolation money shall be set to 1,00,000 won to all the buyers.

D. Sub-determination

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay each of the following amounts to the multiple buyers and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from July 19, 2007 to July 14, 2009, which is the date when the defendant rendered a substantial judgment to dispute over the existence and scope of the obligation to pay for the following amounts and the amount of damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from the next day to the date when the obligation is fully paid:

(C) Selected Kim○○: 4,072, 30 won ( = 3,072, 300 won + 1,000,000 won + 3,564,100 won + 1,000,000 won + (C) Plaintiff Kim○○: 4,172,400 won + 1,000 won + 1,000 won + 3,000 won + 1,000 won (○ 3,172,400 won + 1,000,000 won + 24: 3,613,800 won + 8,000 won + 40,00 won + 1,000 won + 24: 3,00 won per 6,80 won per 3,00 won per 60,000 won

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff et al.'s primary claim is dismissed for the reason that the plaintiff et al.'s primary claim is without merit, and the plaintiff's conjunctive claim is accepted for the reasons that it is within the scope of the above recognition, and all of the conjunctive claims of the buyer and the conjunctive claims of the buyer are dismissed for the reason that they are without merit. Among the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the conjunctive claims of the buyer concerning the above recognition fee is unfair for the reason that it is unfair for the judgment of the court of first instance, and each of them is ordered to revoke it and pay the above recognition fee to the buyer, and the appeal against the plaintiff's primary claim and the remaining conjunctive claims by the buyer are dismissed for the reason that they are without merit. It is so

Judgment of the Supreme Court

Judges Lee Jae-woo