2013Da36200 (Joint) Acceptances

2013Da36217 (Consolidateds) Preemptives

2013Da36224 (Consolidateds) Preemptives

2013Da36231 (Consolidated) Acceptances

2013Da36248 (Joints) Acceptances

2013Da36255 (Consolidated) Acceptances

2. B

3. C

4. D;

5. E.

6. F;

7. G.

2012Na653 (Joint), 2012Na660 (Joint), 2012Na677 (Joint), 2012Na672b

684(Joint), 2012Na6691(Consolidated) Judgment

1. Review of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record reveals the following facts.

A. In the instant case, the Busan High Court rendered 10% judgment on November 8, 201 that the sales advertisement of the instant apartment against the Plaintiff and the previous buyer against Unaccompanied Engineering Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "unaccompanied"), which is the appellate court of the lawsuit against the Plaintiff, the Busan High Court 2009Na11501, 11518 (combined), 11525 (Joint), 11532 (Joint), 11549 (Joint), 11563 (Joint), 11570 (Joint), 11556 (Joint), 1556), which is the appellate court of the lawsuit against the Plaintiff, the seller of the instant apartment, the seller of the instant apartment, or the seller of the instant apartment, constitutes an act of sale without fault or concern of deceiving the consumers, and constitutes an act of sale without fault or advertisement, which constitutes an act of sale without fault of the Plaintiff and the seller of the instant apartment, or an act of sale without fault or an act of sale without fault.

B. As to this, some of the plaintiffs filed an appeal in Supreme Court Decision 2012Da15336, 15343 (combined), 15350 (Joint), 15367 (Joint), 15374 (Joint), 15381 (Joint), 15398 (Joint), and 15404 (Joint) cases.

C. On April 11, 2013, before the judgment of the court of final appeal on the related case was rendered, the court below acknowledged only the judgment of the related case (Evidence A No. 8) as evidence. ① The plaintiff and the unaccompanied were not clear as to the contents of J Park's facilities at the time of the sale of the apartment in this case, the accurate completion time of the construction of the apartment in this case, the possibility of the sale of the apartment in this case, and announced the number of the apartment in this case including the defendants as if the construction of the apartment in front J Park, the completion of the construction of the apartment in Busan subway 2010, and the opening of the apartment in this case connected to the apartment in this case by Busan subway 2010 were all implemented. Such sale advertisement is not only the false and exaggerated advertising, but it seems that the defendants were not aware of the important facts as to the important facts of the apartment in this case as to the apartment sales contract, but also it appears that the Defendants were not aware that it was against the duty of good faith and good faith at the time of the sale contract and its conclusion.

2. However, in the final appeal case of the related case on July 23, 2015, the Supreme Court held that the part concerning J Park among the sale advertisements against the plaintiff and the unaccompanied apartment of this case constitutes false or exaggerated advertisements under the Indication and Advertisement Act, but it is difficult to view that the part concerning the light metal of this case is different from the facts or excessively unfasible in light of the current situation, and that the plaintiff and unaccompanied are obligated to explain the meaning of the basic urban railroad plan to consumers, and it is difficult to view that the part concerning light metal among the sale advertisements against the apartment of this case does not constitute false or exaggerated advertisements under the Advertisement and Advertisement Act. Thus, the part concerning light metal of this case among the sale advertisements against the apartment of this case cannot be deemed to constitute false or exaggerated advertisements, and the fact that the court reversed the part against the plaintiff and unaccompanied apartment of

3. If so, based on the judgment of the relevant case, on the premise that the part concerning J Park among the advertisement for sale of the apartment of this case as well as the part concerning the light metal constitutes false or exaggerated advertisement, the judgment of the court below holding that the Plaintiff’s claim for penalty against the Defendants is not permissible as it goes against the good faith and equity, and thus, cannot be maintained. The Plaintiff’s ground of appeal that the sale advertisement of light metal does not constitute false or exaggerated advertisement is with merit.

4. Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the part against the plaintiff against the defendant D and the remaining part against the defendants are reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Sang-hoon

Justices Kim Jae-tae

Justices Park Sang-ok