[2] The meaning of "a case where there is no possibility of undermining the interests of the other party's instance" under Article 412 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act

[3] In a case where the advertisement of the product is accompanied by a certain section director in the advertisement of the product, whether the act of deception is committed

[4] Requirements for revocation of a legal act on the ground of motive mistake

[5] Where cancellation of a contract is recognized due to changes in circumstances

[6] The legal nature of the contents of an advertisement for apartment sale, which is related to specific terms and conditions of transaction, such as appearance, quality, and structure of apartment buildings, and is not considered to be able to claim the performance of the terms and conditions of the contract under the social norms (=inducing subscription), and whether the buyer may be held liable for the nonperformance of the contract to the seller (

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

[8] Whether restrictions under the main sentence of Article 11(1) of the former Act on Fair Labeling and Advertising are added only to cases where corrective measures have been taken pursuant to Article 7 of the same Act (affirmative)

1. As to the Defendants’ grounds of appeal on the legality of the appeal

In a case where there is a conflict of opinion on the interpretation of whether a written non-appeal is included in the parties’ written agreement during the proceeding of a lawsuit, and the interpretation of procedural acts, such as the agreement of non-appeal, should be based on the indication of the parties rather than the internal intent, unlike the legal acts under the substantive law. If the content of the indicated language is unclear, objective and reasonable interpretation of the objective and reasonable intent or the act expressed externally, the existence of such non-appeal agreement is not clear (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 83Meu1981, Feb. 28, 1984; Supreme Court Decision 2000Da17803, Oct. 11, 2002).

According to the records, on April 2013 through June 2013, when the lawsuit of this case was pending in the court below, the plaintiffs including the plaintiff 6 (hereinafter "the plaintiff 6 et al.") agreed to move into the apartment of this case on the condition that the defendant Hanyang, Inc. (hereinafter "the defendant Hanyang") receive occupancy support, such as occupancy support fund and delayed payment of the purchase price, etc., from the defendant Hanyangyang, and entered the occupancy agreement stating the amount of occupancy support fund, delayed payment of the purchase price, the period of delay of the purchase price, and the settlement period and method of the purchase price in favor of the plaintiff 6 et al. at the court below. The occupancy agreement as mentioned above stated above and stated that "the parties to the agreement shall not object to the judgment below or raise any objection to the lawsuit or objection" (hereinafter "the agreement of this case"). Meanwhile, the defendant Hanyang did not make an answer to the plaintiff 6 et al. as to the contents of the occupancy agreement prior to the occupancy agreement of this case, but did not make an answer to the plaintiff 6 of this case.

Examining these facts in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the purport of the instant provision is merely to the effect that once the judgment of the court below is declared, it should be settled accordingly, and that it shall not refuse the settlement of accounts according to the judgment of the court below on the ground that the appeal was filed while disputing the judgment of the court below, and it is difficult

Therefore, the appeal by the Plaintiff 6 et al. is unlawful as it goes against the agreement of rejection.

2. As to the plaintiffs' grounds of appeal on the legality of the counterclaim

Article 412(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that a counterclaim may be filed at an appellate court where there is no possibility of undermining the interests of the other party's instance, or where the other party's consent is obtained. The term "case where there is no possibility of undermining the interests of the other party's instance" in this context refers to the case where the substantial issue constituting the foundation of a counterclaim claim is sufficiently examined at the first instance court in relation to the cause of the principal claim or method of defense, and there is no concern that the other party may lose the interests of the instance at the first instance court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da20064, Nov. 24, 2005).

The court below determined that the counterclaim of this case constitutes a case where there is no possibility that the plaintiffs would lose their interests at the court of first instance, on the ground that the sales contract of the apartment of this case and the contract for the construction of balcony expansion works of this case, and the terms and conditions thereof, the sale price of the counter-party defendant and the contract for the construction of balcony expansion. The plaintiffs asserted that they paid the purchase price of the apartment of this case and the price for the balcony expansion works of the balcony expansion to the defendants pursuant to the contract of this case. In the first instance, the court below reviewed the validity of the sales contract of the apartment of this case and the contract for the construction of balcony expansion works of this case as the grounds for the plaintiffs' claim, and the payment of the purchase price and the price for balcony expansion.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable. Contrary to the plaintiffs' grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the legality of counter-

3. As to the plaintiffs' grounds of appeal on the cancellation of sales contract by fraud

In a case where specific facts about important matters in the advertisement of a product are falsely notified in a manner to the extent to which they can be criticized in light of the duty of good faith, it constitutes a deception. However, even if the advertisement entails a certain degree of director in the advertisement, if it can be recognized in light of the general commercial practice and good faith principle, it cannot be deemed a deception (see Supreme Court Decision 99Da55601, 55618, May 29, 2001, etc.).

The lower court rejected the Defendants’ assertion that the Defendants could not have known that each of the above businesses was nonexistent or impossible at the time of advertising the apartment of this case, based on the following reasons: (a) a large-scale cultural and leisure facilities including Incheon City basic urban planning or the district unit planning of the Ministry of Knowledge Economy in the free economic zone planning group; (b) the contents of the contents of the advertisement of this case, or the content of the advertisement of the Incheon Urban Corporation and the Korea Land and Housing Corporation; (c) although the Defendants delayed the progress of the development project of this case until the time of advertising the apartment of this case, it was difficult to view that the progress of the project of this case was considerably low; and (d) the Defendants could have known that the apartment of this case could not have known that the apartment of this case could not have known that the apartment of this case was the subject of deception or alteration of the sales contract of this case, or that the Defendants could not have known that the apartment of this case could have known that the project of this case was the subject of deception or alteration of the sales contract of this case.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable. Contrary to the plaintiffs' grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles as to cancellation of juristic act on the ground of fraud

4. As to the plaintiffs' grounds of appeal on the cancellation of sales contract by mistake

In order to cancel a juristic act on the ground that the motive mistake falls under an error in the important part of the contents of the juristic act, it is sufficient to indicate the motive to the other party as the content of the juristic act and to conclude that it is the content of the juristic act in the interpretation of the declaration of intent, and it is not necessary to conclude that the parties concerned agree to separately consider the motive as the content of the juristic act. However, the mistake in the contents of the juristic act should be related to the important part of the juristic act so long as it would have been deemed that the general public would not have made an expression of intent (see Supreme Court Decision 200Da12259 delivered on May 12, 200).

The lower court rejected the Plaintiffs’ assertion on the revocation of the instant apartment sales contract on the ground that: (a) there is no evidence to conclude that the instant development project was the content of the instant apartment sales contract with the intent that it will be realized at the time of entering into the instant apartment sales contract; and (b) it cannot be deemed that all of the instant development project was realized at the time of entering into the instant apartment; and (c) it does not constitute an important part of the contents of the instant apartment sales contract.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable. Contrary to the plaintiffs' grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the cancellation of juristic act on

5. Regarding the plaintiffs' grounds of appeal on the cancellation of sales contract due to change of circumstances

The so-called rescission of a contract due to change of circumstances refers to the occurrence of a significant change in circumstances that could not have been predicted by the parties at the time of the formation of the contract, and the change in circumstances occurred for reasons that are not responsible to the party who acquires the right to cancel. If the binding force under the terms of the contract is acknowledged, it is recognized as an exception to the principle of contract observance in cases where the result is substantially contrary to the good faith principle. The circumstances referred to in this context refer to the objective circumstance which served as the basis of the contract, not to the subjective or personal circumstance of a party (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da313

In light of the fact that the development project of this case, which is the content of the apartment sales advertisement of this case, was in the beginning stage of the project plan or the progress stage, and was likely to be cancelled, modified, or delayed due to changes in the future situation, and the defendants also notified the possibility of cancellation, alteration, or delay of the development project of this case from the apartment sales advertisement of this case, the court below rejected the plaintiffs' claim for cancellation of the apartment sales contract of this case on the ground that the development project of this case, which is the content of the apartment sales advertisement of this case, does not constitute an unforeseeable change in circumstances

In light of the above legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable. Contrary to the plaintiffs' grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the rescission of contract due

6. As to the ground of appeal by some plaintiffs on the cancellation of sales contract due to impossibility of performance

Of the contents of the apartment sale advertisement, the specific terms and conditions, i.e., the external form, quality, structure, etc. of apartment buildings, which can be claimed by the buyer in light of social norms, should be deemed to have been trusted by the buyer and the seller was aware of the fact that the buyer entered into the sales contract and the seller knew of the fact. Thus, barring special circumstances such as the reservation of objection at the time of entering into the sales contract, such matters shall be deemed as the contents of the sales contract by implied agreement between the buyer and the buyer. However, the contents of the apartment sale advertisement, other than those of the above matters, have the nature as an inducement to subscribe, and thus, it cannot be held liable for the buyer to default of the contract (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da5812, 5829, 5836, Jun. 1, 2007, etc.).

The development project of this case, which constitutes the contents of the advertisement of apartment sales, is related to the location conditions of apartment, not to be related to the terms of transaction, such as appearance, material, structure, etc. of apartment, but not to be realized by the Defendants as planned and promoted by local governments, the State, or individual development entities, and such point should be deemed to be well-known by the buyers of apartment of this case. Therefore, it is clear that the Defendants are not liable for the impossibility of performance on the ground that the development project of this case was the contents of the apartment sales contract of this case, and it is not clear that some plaintiffs' assertion on this part is dismissed. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the court below did not explicitly determine the above argument and affected the conclusion of the judgment. The plaintiffs' assertion in

7. As to the grounds of appeal by the plaintiffs and the defendants on the liability for damages caused by violation of the Display and Advertisement Act

A. “False or exaggerated advertisements” under Article 3(1)1 of the former Act on Fair Labeling and Advertising (amended by Act No. 11050, Sep. 15, 201; hereinafter “Fair Labeling and Advertising Act”) refer to advertisements that are likely to deceive or mislead consumers by falsely exposing facts and are likely to undermine fair trade order. Whether an advertisement is likely to deceive or mislead consumers should be objectively determined on the basis of the overall and extreme increase that ordinary consumers with ordinary caution receive the advertisement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du6965, Jun. 27, 2003).

The lower court determined that, in light of the following: (a) among the apartment sale advertisements in the instant case, it was difficult for the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs to oppose the construction of the third-party landing zone, and to find out the solution on the third-party landing zone within a short period of time due to the issue of liability for compensation for damages between the Young-gu and Incheon, and the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, even with the consent of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, the third-party landing zone was included in the 2014 basic urban planning, etc. at the time of the instant apartment sale advertisement, but no specific plan was established on the timing of construction and project costs, etc., but at the time of the instant apartment sale advertisement, the third-party landing zone was included in the 2014 basic urban planning, etc.; and (b) there was no possibility that the advertising of the Defendants' third-party landing zone could not be easily mistaken or altered for consumers as to the third-party landing zone, or for the third-party landing zone development project.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal by the plaintiffs and the defendants, the court below did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles as to false or exaggerated advertisements or omitting judgment,

B. The main text of Article 11(1) of the Display and Advertising Act provides that “The right to claim damages under Article 10 of the Act shall not be asserted in a trial unless corrective measures under Article 7 have become final and conclusive.” However, such restrictions are added only to “the case where corrective measures under Article 7 have been taken” as clearly stated in the same Article (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Da19355, Aug. 20, 2009).

The record reveals that the Defendants did not have been subject to corrective measures under Article 7 of the Act on the Labeling and Advertising in connection with the instant apartment sale advertisement. Therefore, the Plaintiffs’ assertion of the right to claim damages under Article 10 of the same Act is not restricted by the main sentence of Article 11(1) of the same Act.

In the same purport, the judgment of the court below is just, and contrary to the defendants' grounds of appeal, there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles on limitation of claim for damages under the Display and Advertisement Act.

C. The court below held that the amount of damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the false or exaggerated advertisement about the third consecutive landing shall be the difference between the sales price and the appropriate sales price of the apartment of this case in the event that there was no such false or exaggerated advertisement as above at the time of concluding the sales contract. Since it is factually impossible to compute the amount, it shall be considered in calculating the amount of consolation money as above, the court below determined that the amount of consolation money shall be set at 5% of the sales price of the apartment of this case, taking into account all the circumstances revealed in the arguments, such as the fact that property damage occurred as above and the unique characteristics of the apartment of this case located on the island of Youngdo.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal by the plaintiffs and the defendants, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the calculation of damages caused by false or exaggerated advertisements under the Display and Advertisement

8. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals and incidental appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal and incidental appeal are assessed against each party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

[Attachment 1] Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and List of Plaintiffs: Omitted

[Attachment 2] Omitted

Justices Ko Young-han (Presiding Justice)