beta
(영문) 서울고등법원 2014.11.20 2014나26486

손해배상(기)

Text

1. All appeals by the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenors are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff’s Intervenor.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant Coin Assets Trust Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Coinco”) is an executor who newly constructs and supplies apartment units of 20 to 30 stories above the ground level 20 to 22,190 households above the ground level 20 to 30 (hereinafter “the apartment units of this case”) and ancillary welfare facilities by being entrusted with the land of the Defendant Jinco Assets Trust Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Coinco”) and the Defendant Coin, Ltd.’s members (hereinafter “Defendant Coinco”). The Defendant Coin’s members are the truster of the said land to Defendant Coinco, Ltd., and the colon of the instant apartment units of this case.

B. Around December 2009, the Plaintiff concluded a sales contract with Defendant Cococo for the sales price of KRW 332,449,000 for the instant apartment purchase price of KRW 504,302 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

C. On September 21, 2012, the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenors succeeded to 1/2 shares of each of the parties to the instant sales contract from the Plaintiff.

On March 12, 2014, the Plaintiff withdrawn from the instant lawsuit.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's successor's assertion

A. The Defendants deceiving the Plaintiffs by making false and exaggerated indications and advertisements without notifying the relevant apartment complex of the material facts regarding the construction of separate construction by Dong, the construction of the NTX Station in the light line, the extension of the GTX route, the size and use of the O Park, and the opening of the Puniversity and Qu University Camp. As such, the Defendants were liable for damages arising from the violation of the former Act on Fair Labeling and Advertising (amended by Act No. 11050, Sept. 15, 201; hereinafter “Indication Advertising Act”) and tort.

B. The defendants constructed the apartment of this case in a way different from the contents of the sales contract of this case, such as constructing the apartment of this case using materials other than those presented in the model house.