2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants posted the instant advertisement containing false or exaggerated information about monthly sales, etc., or breached the duty to notify important matters in the process of concluding the contract related to the instant vehicle, and thereby, the Plaintiff sustained damages, such as purchasing the instant vehicle at a high price.

Accordingly, Defendant B and C are damages pursuant to Article 10 of the Act on Fair Labeling and Advertising and Article 750 of the Civil Act. The Defendant Company is jointly liable for damages pursuant to Article 756 of the Civil Act or Articles 389(3) and 210 of the Commercial Act, and jointly liable for payment of damages to the Plaintiff KRW 43,230,860 [the amount of property damages = KRW 33,230,860 (the purchase price of the instant vehicle - KRW 82,200,000 in the event there was no false director’s advertisement - KRW 48,00,000 in the appropriate purchase price of the instant vehicle - KRW 10,000 in the event there was no false director’s advertisement of the Defendants] and damages for delay.

B. 1) Determination 1) Whether liability for damages arising from a tort is established or not, in the event that specific facts about important matters of a transaction are falsely notified in a manner to the extent of being criticized in light of the duty of good faith when advertising and advertising goods, it constitutes a deception. However, in light of the general commercial practice and the good faith principle, there is a lack of exaggeration in advertising and advertising to the extent of being acceptable, or a deception if there is

In addition, in the transaction of property rights, if either party to the contract notifies the other party of specific circumstances that may affect the validity of the contract or may endanger the other party's right, the other party does not enter into the contract at least.