Defendant B, Defendant B, 346,981.

A. The reasons for this part of this Court are as follows: (a) the term “foreign exchange bank” in the six pages 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance is applied to “loan Bank”, and (b) below.

The part of the claim and [based on recognition] column is the same as “1. Basic Facts” on the grounds of the judgment of the first instance, except for adding “A’s No. 40,” and “A’s obvious fact to this court.” As such, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

B. 1) In the instant lawsuit, the number of buyers of the apartment of this case filed a lawsuit claiming compensation for damages against the Plaintiff, asserting that the sales contract was cancelled primarily due to lack of infrastructure, etc. of the apartment of this case, and claiming restitution of the sale price as its original state. In the preliminary lawsuit, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming compensation for damages by asserting that the Plaintiff had made a false or exaggerated advertisement as if he had been aware that the development project, such as the construction of the third local bridge, was not implemented as the content of the advertisement, even though he/she was aware that the development project, such as the construction of the third local bridge, was not implemented as the content of the advertisement (in Incheon District Court Decision 201Da20689, 2069, 2012Gahap7287, 2012Gahap7287, 2012Gahap18126,

[2] The first instance court dismissed all of the main claims, and partly accepted the conjunctive claim on the ground that the Plaintiff’s sales advertisement on the third part of the third part constitutes false or exaggerated advertising under Article 3(1) of the Act on Fair Labeling and Advertising (hereinafter “Indication and Advertising Act”).

3) In determining the same purport, the appellate court also recognized the amount of damages suffered by buyers as 5% equivalent to the relevant sales price (Seoul High Court 2013Na23688, 2013Na23695, 2013Na23701, 2013Na23718, 2013Na23718, 2018, 2013Na23718, 2015). The appellate court dismissed all appeals against the above judgment of the appellate court on May 28, 2015 (Supreme Court 2014Da57228, 2014Da57235, 2014Da57242, 204Da57259, 209, 2014Da572599, Feb. 28, 2015).