E-Government

2. Audit. ○○

Ilsan City

3. Lower○○.

Seoul Songpa-gu

4. ○○.

Essung simuls

5. Kim Jong-chul

Daegu Dong-gu

6. 문ㅁㅁ

Seoul Gwangjin-gu

7. △△; and

Suwon-si

8. Kim Jae-in

Incheon Southern-gu

9. Lighting;

Sungnam-si

10. Gima △△

Mabiode Mag-si

11. Park △△△; and

Ansan-si

Dok △△△

Essung simuls

13. △△△△ branch;

Chicago-si

14. Park ○○

Busan Shipping Daegu

15. Kim Madle;

Chicago-si

16. Maternum;

Seoul Songpa-gu

17. Maternum;

Thresponding City

18. ○○○○○

Gangnam-gu Seoul

Representative Director** *

19. Lighting○

Bocheon-si

20.Grain

21.Ami

Plaintiff 20,21’s Address Gyeonggi-do Group

22. △△△△

23. △△△△△;

Plaintiff 22 and 23’s Address Suwon

24. Maternum;

25.This Act

Plaintiff 24 and 25’s address known

26. Kim

27.Oil

Plaintiff 26,27's address Busan Jin-gu

Plaintiffs (Law Firm Lee & Lee, Attorneys Yellow-min et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Law Firm Bad, Attorney Lee Byung-tae,

Attorney Kim Jong-soo

Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho-gu 231

This representative director*, this**

Attorney Kang Jin-mo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Law Firm Squa, Attorneys Tae Tae-young

A. Plaintiffs Kim ○○, Lee ○, Kim △, Kim △, Park △△, Park △△, Kim Man, Man legalon, and Man legalon, respectively, KRW 1,150,000, and KRW 650,000, and KRW 650,000, to Plaintiff OOO;

C. The Plaintiff 1: (a) KRW 950,000, respectively, to the △△△△△△△△△, and the △△△△△△△, each of whom is KRW 950,000,

D. The Plaintiff 575,00 won for each of the △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△

F. Payment of 5% per annum from March 27, 2012 to September 17, 2012, and 20% per annum from the next day to the full payment date to Plaintiff Kim Yong-ok of the amount of 250,000 won and each of the above money.

2. All of the plaintiffs' claims and the remainder of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

3. 소송비용 중 원고 강경구, 하○○, 김□□과 피고 사이에서 생긴 부분은 위 원고들이 부담하고, 원고 김○○, 이○○, 김△△, 박△△, 박○○, 김◎◎, 장◎◎, 어◎◎ , 강□□, 이□□, 이◎◎, 이○○, 김○○, 오 사이에서 생긴 부분은 피고가 부담하고, 원고 주식회사 OOOO, 문, 임ㅁㅁ, 김○○, 조○○, 손△△, 지△△, 조○○, 이△△, 류△△과 피고 사이에서 생긴 부분의 20 % 는 위 원고들이, 나머지는 피고가 각 부담한다 .

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

Kim △△△, Park △△, △△△, △△△, △△△, Park ○, Kim ○○, Maumk, Maumle, OOOO, and

1,150,00 won for each gold 1,150,000 won, the Gangseo-gu, the Plaintiff, the △△△△△, the △△△△△, the Madle, and the ○○○.

575,00 won for each of the above amounts and each of the amounts to KRW 250,000 for the plaintiff Kim Jong-ok and Oi, respectively.

20% per annum from the day following the service of the application for modification of the purport and cause of the claim to the day of full completion

The judgment ordering the payment of the calculated money.

(a) The relationship between the parties;

The plaintiffs are customers who have purchased knif vehicles of each corresponding model listed in the separate sheet from the defendant company at each corresponding time specified in the separate sheet, and the defendant company is a domestic fluoring company, the main purpose of which is to manufacture and sell various automobiles.

A representative model of the RV (Recid 1) department produced by the Defendant Company is being produced and sold by dividing it into the 11-person Grand Flag vehicle and the 9-person New Flaf vehicle and the 9-person New Flaf vehicle.

C. From January 207 to September 9, 2007, Defendant Company commenced the sale of the vehicle, “The sale of the vehicle was commenced,” which is the upper model at the time, 1 to 3 heat bags, and Defendant Company distributed news reports on the basic installation of 1 to 3 heat bags on the above model around February 2, 2007.

2) Around June 24, 2008, the Defendant Company: (a) decided to manufacture the vehicle by reducing the volume of the car from 1 to 3 to 1 to 2 heat from the opening of the vehicle at around 2009 with the launch of the vehicle; (b) however, the price guide booker offered to the customer who intends to purchase the vehicle at the actual waterway business place of the employee in charge did not reflect the above change of the specifications; (c) it was written that the price guide booker offered to the customer who wants to purchase the vehicle was provided as a basic form of 1 to 3 heat bags, as the above change of the specifications is not reflected.

3) After that, around January 6, 2010, the Defendant Company: (a) sent the 2010-type Kax-type car; (b) applied the 1-2nd unit of the 1-2nd unit of the 1st unit of the 1st unit of the 1st unit of the 1st unit of the 1st unit of the 1st unit of the 1st unit of the 1st unit of the 1st unit of the 1st unit of the 1st unit of the 1st unit of the 1st unit of the 1st unit of the 1st unit of the 1st unit of the 1st unit of the 1st unit of the 1st unit of the 1st unit of the 1st unit of the

4) Next, around December 1, 2010, the Defendant Company: (a) opened the 2011-type Kax-type Kax-type 201, and changed to apply the Kax-type Gax-type Gax-type Gax to the basic factor; (b) as before the Defendant Company’s Internet homepage, the Kax-type Gack-type Gack-type Gack-type Gack-type 1 to 3 column 1; and (c) on the Defendant Company’s Internet homepage, the 1-2000 Kack-type Gac-type 1 to 30 Kack-type Kack-type Kack-type Kack (hereinafter “Kack-type Ka”) was put up on the 1-200 Kack 1 to 30 Kack-type Gac-type Gac-type Gack’s photograph Gac.

6) Accordingly, all of the vehicles purchased by the rest of the plaintiffs except the plaintiff Ha○○ as shown in the attached Table are installed with a white light of 1 to 2 heat studs.

D. Measures against the Defendant Company

1) On March 4, 2011, Defendant Company received a customer’s claim and corrected that the margin was installed in 1 to 2 column on the pertinent part of the front price guide and website on the instant car for the purpose of March 9, 2011.

2) From April 201, the Defendant Company proposed that the buyers of 3,250 vehicles in the instant case, which were at issue, should be paid KRW 650,00 in money equivalent to the installation price unless they want to have the air bags installed, and agreed to the buyer of the vehicle other than the buyers of 196 vehicles, including the Plaintiffs, by means of cash compensation or exchange settlement.

【Uncontentious facts, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Gap’s evidence No. 7 through 10, Eul’s evidence No. 2 through 6, Eul’s evidence No. 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the claims filed by the Plaintiff Kang○, Ha○○, and Kim Jong-young

Plaintiff Kang○, Ha○○, Ha○○, and Kim Jong-ri asserted that the Defendant Company caused property and mental damage by continuously operating the purchased vehicle with the belief that the 1-3rd air bags were installed, and that the 1-3rd air bags were installed, by deceiving them by means of false advertisement, even though the 1-3rd air bags were not installed on the vehicles actually purchased by the said Plaintiffs.

Therefore, in light of the overall purport of the pleadings in the statement Nos. 7-1, 2, and 7-1 in the case of the plaintiff ○○, the above plaintiff purchased a new Gazet GLX 3, 2010 produced between November 29, 2010 and December 1, 2010, which was displayed at the store around Nov. 7, 201, and the above plaintiff 1 to 3, it is difficult to view that the above vehicle was a vehicle installed with a 1 to 3rd air bags, and that the above vehicle was not selected as a option, and it was believed that the above plaintiff 1 to 1 to 3rd air bags, and that the above vehicle was purchased with a 4000 Kazet 1 to 400 Kazet 9, respectively, and that the plaintiff Ha-○ was not a 1 to 400 Kazon 20 Kazet 9.

3. Determination as to the remaining plaintiffs' claims except the plaintiffs' claims of Gangwon-do, HaO, Kim Jong-tae

A. According to the facts of recognition of the above 1. 1. The defendant company stated that although the 1. 1. 1. 24 June 2008 specifications of the 1. 1. 2008 Kaman vehicle of this case have been reduced, it is erroneous that the 1 to 3rd can apply the 1. Kaman, such as the price guide and the Internet homepage transfer. The above price guide and the Internet homepage function as the main medium to confirm the main resources of the vehicle when the customer makes a decision to purchase the vehicle. Accordingly, the remaining plaintiffs except for the plaintiff ○○, Ha○○, and Kim Jong-si (hereinafter "the remaining plaintiffs") believe that the 1-3 Kaman vehicle of this case is installed in the Kaman vehicle of this case, the defendant company has been responsible for the remaining damages to the defendant company by selecting the Kaman vehicle of this case as options or by including the above Kamil in the attached table in its basic form, and then purchasing the vehicle in this case.

2) The Defendant Company asserted to the effect that, in the case of the Plaintiff △△△, the Plaintiff was merely a lessee who leased the Plaintiff’s 15th class 1736 car from the Mez comprehensive financial securities company, and that there was no specific damage to the Plaintiff. However, in full view of the overall purport of the pleadings, the Plaintiff agreed to purchase the said car after the lease of the said car from the said company around February 14, 201, when considering the overall purport of the pleadings, around the 13th class 3th class 3 and 4. Accordingly, the Plaintiff agreed to purchase the said car after the expiration of the lease period of 3 years.

In full view of the fact that the above plaintiff is operating a car with the above car while paying the rent up to the present time, and the lease price is determined by reflecting the vehicle price and the amount of the car, the above plaintiff is in the status to be protected as the owner even if the above plaintiff is a lessee. Therefore, the above assertion by the defendant company is not accepted.

(b) Property losses;

In general, the explanation of the price guide and the website provided by the automobile company falls under the main data that customers receive information necessary to select vehicles, such as vehicle resources and prices, in purchasing vehicles. In particular, in the case of airbags, it falls under the key data of safety devices to protect passengers in vehicles. As seen above, unlike other domestic general passengers, in the case of the instant carbags, it has been known to the consumers by taking a special point that all passengers in the seats can be protected in the first to third to third to the first to the first to the third to the third to the third to the third to the third to the third to the third to the third to the third to the third to the third. Unless there are special circumstances, the remaining plaintiffs subscribed to the Defendant company, including the purchase of vehicles with one to third to the third to the third to the third to the third to the third to the third to the third to the third to the third to the △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△, and thus, it is reasonable to view the remaining plaintiffs 50 to the first to the third to the third to the third to the 60.

In regard to this, the Defendant Company asserted to the effect that it is unfair to calculate the total amount of the installation price of the 1-3 heat bags as damages, because the difference between the installation price of the 1-2 heat bags and the cost of the 1-50,000 square meters from the 1-3 heat bags. However, even based on the written evidence Nos. 12, 13-1, and 2 submitted by the Defendant, the 1-2 heat bags and 1-3 heat bags are entirely separate parts. The Defendant Company’s assertion that it is not feasible to install the 1-4 to 50,000 square meters at the expense of the 1-50,000 square meters from the present vehicle of this case in question, and that it is not obvious that the 3-4 to 500,000 square meters at the expense of the 1-50,000 square meters from the present vehicle of this case in question is not reasonable.

C. Mental damage1) Generally, in case where a property right of another person is infringed due to an unlawful act, mental suffering is deemed to be recovered by compensation for such property damage. Thus, if an irrecoverable mental damage is caused by compensation for property damage, this can claim consolation money for such damage only if the perpetrator knew or could have known such damage due to special circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Da82507, Mar. 18, 2004). 2) The above facts acknowledged in this case, comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances, the vehicle of this case was purchased to be mainly used for the leisure activities of its family members as a vehicle of RV department, and the vehicle of this case was a key high-tech device for protecting passengers of modern automobile technology, and thus, the vehicle of this case is the most preferentially considered for safety of the vehicle of this case, and the vehicle of this case was installed in the vehicle of this case to be exposed to the purchaser of the vehicle of this case with strong mental damage to be exposed to the defendant 13 to 1000 Kak, which can be acknowledged that the vehicle of this case was exposed to be exposed to the defendant 2.

However, among the remaining plaintiffs, it appears that the plaintiff corporation purchased a car of 40 U.S. 3429 for business purposes. Thus, it is difficult to see that the above plaintiff suffered mental damage as seen above.

3) Amount of consolation money

As above, the contents and result of the defendant company's tort, the social status and responsibility of the defendant company, the importance of airbags, the degree of mental suffering suffered by the relevant plaintiffs in RV vehicles, the operation period and ownership of the relevant vehicle, and the defendant company's intentional act. The defendant company agreed with the buyers of most of the instant carbags in question, and the rest of the plaintiffs presented the agreement on the installation of airbags or monetary compensation. Considering the various circumstances shown in the argument in this case, the consolation money is reasonable to determine as follows: ○○, ○, ○, ○○, Kim △△, Kim △, Kim △, Kim, Kim Jong-young, △, △△, △△, △△, △△, △△, △△, △△, △△, △△, △△, △△, △△, △△, △△, △△, △△, △△, △△, △△, △△, 100, 00.

4. Conclusion

그렇다면, 피고는 손해배상으로, 원고 김○○, 이○○, 김△△, 박△△, 박○○, 김◎ ◎, 장◎◎, 어◎◎에게 각 금 1, 150, 000원 ( 650, 000원 + 500, 000원 ), 원고 주식회사 이○○○에게 금 650, 000원, 원고 문□□, 임□□, 김○○, 조○○, 손△△, 지△△, 조이 ○에게 각 금 950, 000원 ( 650, 000원 + 300, 000원 ), 원고 강□□, 이□□, 이◎◎, 이○○에게 각 금 575, 000원 ( 325, 000원 + 250, 000원 ), 원고 이△△, 류△△에게 각 금 475, 000원 ( 325, 0000원 + 150, 000원 ), 원고 김소, 오오오에게 각 금 250, 000원 및 위 각 돈에 대한 손해발생일 이후로서 원고가 구하는 이 사건 청구취지 및 청구원인 변경신청서 송달 다음날인 2012. 3. 27. 부터 피고 회사가 항쟁함이 상당한 이 판결선고일인 2012. 9. 17. 까지는 민법 소정의 연 5 %, 그 다음날부터 완제일까지는 소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법 소정의 연 20 % 의 각 비율로 계산한 지연손해금을 지급할 의무가 있으므로, 나머지 원고들의 청구는 위 각 해당 인정범위 내에서 모두 이유 있어 인용하고, 나머지 원고들의 각 나머지 청구 및 원고 강○○, 하○○, 김□□의 청구는 모두 이유 없으므로 기각하기로 하여 주문과 같이 판결한다 .

The term "MPV" means multi-purpose vehicles (MPV), and it is divided into U.S. Round, SUV, dwarf, etc.

2) The name at the time of the first withdrawal is “IMFD” in the name of the first withdrawal.

3) Vehicles produced at the time when 1 to 3 heat air bags were applied as selective vehicles.

4) The Plaintiff Kim Jong-ok had already been installed from the Defendant Company with a heat of 1 to 3 studs, and did not seek compensation for property damage.

5) gold 650,000 x 1/21