[2] The meaning of "false or exaggerated advertisement" under Article 3 (1) 1 of the former Act on Fair Labeling and Advertising and the criteria for its determination

[3] In a case where Gap corporation advertised as if it would be installed within a relatively short period of time despite a significant change that caused a significant decrease in the possibility of realizing the underground ID at the time of selling the main complex apartment, the case affirming the judgment below which held that the above advertising act constitutes an unfair advertising act by fraud or director under Article 3 (1) 1 of the former Act on Fair Labeling and Advertising

[4] Whether aiding and abetting by negligence in a joint tort is possible (affirmative) and the meaning of negligence

[5] In a claim for damages arising from a tort, where it is deemed that property damage was incurred, but it is difficult to prove the specific amount of damage in light of the nature of the case, whether the court may determine the amount of damage in proximate causal relation by comprehensively taking into account indirect facts (affirmative)

1. As to the grounds of appeal by the Plaintiffs (excluding the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) 9, 10, and 11 (hereinafter “Plaintiff 9, etc.”) (hereinafter “Plaintiff 1, etc.”)

In full view of the circumstances in the judgment of the court below, the exclusive use area of the instant main complex building as indicated in the public announcement of invitation of residents or the housing supply contract should have been calculated based on the internal line of external walls, not on the center line size, but on the other hand, the court below determined that in accordance with the interpretation of the head of Gwangjin-gu Office, a legal enforcement agency, the exclusive use area shall be calculated according to the size of the center line and the exclusive use area shall be indicated in the public announcement of invitation of residents or the housing supply contract, and thus, it cannot be deemed an unfair indication and advertisement by the false or exaggerated division under Article 3 (1) 1 of the former Act on Fair Labeling and Advertising (amended by Act No. 11050, Sep. 15, 201; hereinafter “former Display and Advertising Act”).

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant statutes and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable and acceptable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the act of false or exaggerated labeling or advertising or exclusive use area as prescribed by the Housing Act.

2. As to the defendants' appeal

A. Ex officio determination

(1) The part of the appeal against the plaintiff 9 et al. by the defendant Yangyang market

In the first instance court, when the plaintiff's claim against the defendant was partially accepted, only the plaintiff filed an appeal against the part against which the plaintiff lost, and the defendant was dismissed as the plaintiff's appeal was dismissed, and the defendant's appeal is unlawful as there is no benefit of the appeal (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da24431 delivered on December 8, 192).

According to the records, when the claim against the plaintiff 9 et al. against the plaintiff 9 et al. was partially accepted in the first instance court, the plaintiff 9 et al. filed an appeal, and the defendant Yyang market did not file an appeal or incidental appeal, and the defendant 9 et al. dismissed the appeal, the defendant Yyang market filed an appeal. In light of the above legal principles, in light of the above legal principles, the above appeal against the plaintiff 9 et al. against the defendant 9 et al. is unlawful

(2) The part of the appeal by the court of first instance against the winning part of the judgment of the court of first instance, including the plaintiff 1

In a case where the plaintiff appealed against the judgment of the court of first instance which partly accepted the plaintiff's claim, but the defendant did not appeal or incidental appeal, the part in favor of the plaintiff in the judgment of first instance was transferred to the appellate court due to the plaintiff's appeal, but did not belong to the appellate court. Therefore, if the appellate court partly accepted the plaintiff's appeal and partly revoked the part in favor of the plaintiff in the judgment of first instance and accepted the plaintiff's claim against the part in favor of the plaintiff in the judgment of first instance, it is limited to the part in the judgment of first instance, and the part in favor of the plaintiff in the judgment of first instance is not subject to the defendant's appeal since the appellate court rendered a judgment against the part in favor of the plaintiff in the judgment of first instance. The change in the judgment in the appellate court is identical to the judgment of partial revocation which dismissed the appeal with respect to the part in the judgment of first instance where the appeal is well-founded, and it is not in accordance with the defendant's request for convenience to easily understand the contents of the order. Thus, the defendant cannot file an appeal from the appellate court's judgment 2014.

In light of the above legal principles, the appeal filed by the plaintiff 1 et al. against the plaintiff 1 et al. in the first instance court against the plaintiff 1 et al. shall be deemed unlawful as a final appeal against the part that cannot be the subject of a final appeal against the judgment of the court below.

B. As to the ground of appeal on underground ice

According to Article 3(1)1 of the former Act and Article 3(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, false or exaggerated advertisements refer to advertisements that are contrary to facts or are likely to deceive or mislead consumers, and that might undermine fair trade order. Whether advertisements are likely to deceive or mislead consumers should be objectively determined on the basis of the overall and extreme increase of ordinary consumers who receive the pertinent advertisement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Da59066, Jul. 22, 2010; 2009Da67979, 67986, Aug. 26, 2010).

After recognizing the facts in the judgment, the court below determined that the act of advertising as if the instant underground ID was scheduled to be installed within a relatively short period of time, even though there were significant changes in the possibility of its realization due to the fact that the general consumers with ordinary care received the advertisement was excessively less likely to mislead consumers, and that the possibility of its realization constitutes an act of advertising likely to mislead them, and that fair trade order is likely to be impeded, as the act of advertising is likely to be impeded by the general consumers with ordinary care, and thus, it constitutes an unfair act of false or exaggerated advertising as defined in Article 3 (1) 1 of the former Act, since the construction plan of the instant underground ID was excluded from the solar district, which included the instant main complex building, around September 2005, which was at the time of the commencement of sale of the instant main complex building.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable and acceptable. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle

C. As to the grounds of appeal on the recognition of the liability to compensate for damages by Defendant two Industries Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant two Industries”).

Joint tort refers to all direct and indirect acts that facilitate tort, and the interpretation of the Civil Act, unlike the Criminal Act, which recognizes negligence as a matter of principle for the purpose of compensating for damages, is able to assist by negligence. In such cases, negligence refers to a violation of this duty on the premise that the duty of care not to assist the tort is not provided (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2009Da1313, Apr. 23, 2009; 2012Da15060, 15077, Jun. 14, 2012).

In full view of the circumstances indicated in the judgment below, the court below determined that Defendant 2 Industries could be recognized as having promoted it by displaying its trade name, etc. together or by aiding and abetting it at least by neglecting its duty of care as a contractor, even though it was sufficiently aware or could have been aware of the false and exaggerated indication and advertisement about the underground ice of this case and the supplied area of the Defendant 20 markets.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable and acceptable. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules

D. As to the ground of appeal on the amount of damages

In a lawsuit seeking compensation for damages due to a tort, where it is deemed that the occurrence of property damage is recognized, but it is difficult to prove the specific amount of damage in light of the nature of the case, the court may determine the amount of damage in proximate causal relation by taking into account all the indirect facts such as the relationship between the parties, the background leading up to the tort and its property damage, the nature of the damage, and all the circumstances after the damage was incurred (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Da6951, 6968, Jun. 24, 2004; 2004Da60447, Nov. 23, 2006).

As indicated in its holding, the lower court recognized the amount equivalent to 5% of the sale price by taking into account the following: (a) the developments leading up to the conclusion of the sales contract by Plaintiff 1, etc.; (b) the degree of falsity or exaggeration of the Defendants’ labeling advertisement; (c) the impact of the conclusion of the sales contract; and (d) the degree of increase in the market price generally anticipated when the instant underground ice is constructed and the supply area was indicated evenly in accordance with the relevant statutes; (d) the area where the instant main complex building

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable and acceptable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to the assessment of damages and failing

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal against the plaintiff 9 et al. of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff 1 et al. is dismissed, and the appeal against the plaintiff 1 et al. of the judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed, respectively. The costs of appeal against the plaintiff 1 et al. of the defendant 2 industry and the defendant 2 industry shall be borne by each appellant. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each appellant. However, there are some errors in the part of the judgment below (the plaintiff 9 et al. shall be the previous claim against the defendants in the judgment of the court below, and the claim against the plaintiff 9 et al. for the return of the sale price against the defendant 2 on the ground that the contract for sale in lots was cancelled by deception or mistake was revised by adding the claim against the plaintiff 9 et al. to the main claim against the plaintiff 1 et al. of the judgment of the court below, and the court below did not state the main claim against the plaintiff 9 et al., which

Justices Kim Yong-deok (Presiding Justice)