2. The council of occupants' representatives of PS apartment;

[Judgment of the court below]

Attorney Lee Jae-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee

(a) 5% per annum from the date indicated in the balance payment column among the claims by plaintiffs (appointed parties) P and the selectors listed in the list of the plaintiffs (appointed parties) in the attached Form (Omission) to the amount claimed by the plaintiffs (appointed parties) and the attached Form (Omission) and the amount claimed by the plaintiffs and the selectors, and 20% per annum from the date indicated in the balance payment column to May 18, 2007, and 5% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment; and

B. The plaintiff PS apartment council shall pay 27,511,740 won and 22,788,870 won among them at the rate of 20% per annum from May 19, 2007 to the date of full payment. 2. The defendant shall bear the costs of lawsuit.

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

A. On June 30, 2003, the Defendant obtained the approval of the housing business plan from the Busan Metropolitan City Dong-gu Office by using the site area of 14,075.1 square meters, the building area of 2,652.32 meters, the total floor area of 57,346.44 square meters, and obtained the approval of the alteration of the business plan on August 29, 2003 by changing the scheduled date of commencement and the scheduled date of inspection of use on the ground of 18 lots (hereinafter referred to as the “instant apartment site”).

B. From September 20, 2003, the defendant concluded a public announcement of invitation of occupants (public announcement of sale in lots) in daily newspapers, and completed the registration of ownership transfer for the number of housing units as shown on the plaintiff (appointed parties, hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiffs") P and the designated persons listed on the list of designated persons (excluding the designated persons listed in paragraph (d)) and (d) below with regard to the initial buyers listed on the table of public announcement of sale in lots, and made an application for sale in lots with the defendant around October 2003, and the plaintiff and the designated persons described on the table of attached Form 32 square meters in common among the total amount requested by the plaintiff and the designated persons. 32 square meters in common, in the same attached Form 3, the number of apartment units as shown on the unit, 247,000 to 26,200,000 won to 708,700,0000 won to each of the above lots of apartment units, and completed the registration of ownership transfer as stated on the lots.

C. On the other hand, on the other hand, on March 339, 291, 295, on 2552. 264. 3339 on 291, 291, the designated parties received the right to reduce the price from the first seller who entered into the sales contract with the defendant as shown in the following table among the claims by the plaintiff and the designated parties. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 20350, Mar. 339, 299>

A person shall be appointed.

D. However, in the column of co-ownership in the public notice of sale and the sale contract of the apartment of this case, the area of the apartment of this case was indicated as 36.2180m in the case of a square meters (32m square meters) and 52.6116m in the case of a supplied area (45m square meters) but the size according to the share in the co-owned site in which the plaintiff and the designated parties actually received the registration of the transfer of the ownership in the co-owned site was stated as 107.9360m (32m square) in the case of the supply area, the size according to the share in the co-owned site was 35.721m (32m square) compared to the entry in the sale contract with a square meters with 35.721m (150.592m square meters (45m square meters) in the case of the supplied area and 51.898m square meters (45m square meters) in the sale contract.

E. The defendant, while guiding the buyer of the apartment of this case to move in, notified that the management expenses incurred prior to the occupancy date should be borne by the tenant, but the management expenses incurred subsequent thereto should be borne by the tenant, is delinquent in paying 2,788,870 won, and the overdue charge on the management expenses unpaid until April 27, 2007 is KRW 4,722,870.

A. The parties' assertion

(1) Plaintiff P and Appointors’ assertion

The sales contract of this case concluded with the plaintiff and the designated parties is a sale that designates the quantity as stipulated in Article 547 of the Civil Act. Since some of the defendant's obligations to transfer the co-ownership share agreed to the seller of this case, the defendant is obligated to return the amount equivalent to the shortage due to the seller's warranty liability to the plaintiff P and the designated parties.

(2) The defendant's assertion

① Although the indication and size of real estate are stated in each of the instant sales contracts, it is merely a part to specify the object of the sales contract, so each of the instant sales contracts cannot be deemed as a sale designated for quantity. ② Under Article 8(5) of the apartment supply contract prepared at the time of the sales contract, the increase and decrease of the site area within 2% after the completion survey is decided not to be settled mutually. The reduction in the site area of this case is less than 2%, and this is inevitable in the course of cadastral confirmation survey due to the error in existing cadastral map and technical limit, and thus, the Defendant is not obliged to return the payment for the shortage in area.

B. Determination

(1) Whether the quantity is a designated sale or purchase

In full view of the above evidence and the purport of the whole pleadings, the defendant can recognize that the contract was concluded first by specifying only the size of the apartment complex of this case, which is the object of the contract, at the time of the public announcement of the sale of the apartment complex of this case and the area of the public site before the construction of the building is completed. As such, in entering into a large-scale housing supply contract, which is classified by usual type before the construction of the building is completed, consumers cannot confirm the actual status of the object of the contract. However, in accordance with the substitute location of the house to be constructed at the future, the size of the building site and the area of the common site as indicated in the public announcement of the sale of the building, and the unit sale contract is concluded after drawing lots. Thus, the specific area of the object of the contract is mainly conducted by the area of the building that has not yet been completed at the time of the contract and the area of the common site. In light of the fact that the purchaser does not have authority to select the specific location (Dong and number) of the object of the contract of this case, the sale contract cannot be returned to the sale price.

(2) The fact that the seller of this case and Article 8(5) of the apartment supply contract prepared by the defendant on whether the seller of this case are exempt from the duty to return the price for the insufficient site area may increase or decrease within 2% of the site area after the completion survey, and the increase or decrease in the site price after the increase or decrease shall not be settled mutually. It is interpreted that there is no dispute between the parties concerned, and the meaning of the above provision is interpreted to mean that there is no separate obligation to settle the price for the apartment site planned at the time when there is an increase or

However, considering the overall purport of Gap evidence 11-1, 2, and Gap evidence 12-1 through 29, Eul evidence 13-1 through 18, Eul evidence 3-1, 2, and Eul evidence 9, the defendant applied for the approval of the housing project plan of this case and requested E-Building Office to calculate the area of the site of this case. The above construction office calculated the area to be incorporated into the apartment site of this case as 14,075.1m2 in the method of calculating the area of the site by entering the certified copy of the cadastral map in computer in the computer (CAD system). Based on this, the defendant obtained the approval of the housing project plan on June 30, 200, the Korea Cadastral Survey Corporation established the apartment site of this case at the defendant's request on July 21, 2003, the sales contract of this case was concluded over three times, and as a result, the defendant did not finally confirm the area of the site of this case to the defendant on September 28, 2003.

According to the above facts, it is merely because the defendant did not properly confirm the actual site area which was determined by the Korea Intellectual Property Corporation at the time of the sale announcement or the sale contract, and it cannot be viewed that the sale contract was made based on the wrong calculated site area. Thus, it cannot be viewed that the defendant's obligation to return the price is exempt pursuant to Article 8 (5) of the above apartment supply contract after the sale contract was made.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to return the above co-owned site to the plaintiff and the designated parties who requested price reduction.

(3) Scope of reduction

(A) In the case of a loss of account (32 square meters) of the supplied area;

Of the Plaintiff P and the designated parties, the part of the shortage in the share of the co-owned site is 0.4969 square meters in the case of the Plaintiff’s first purchaser of the apartment of 107.9360 square meters (32 square meters) and the transferee of the Plaintiff’s first purchaser of the apartment of 107.9360 square meters (hereinafter “instant 32 square meters”) who received the claim to reduce the price from the Defendant from the Plaintiff’s first purchaser of the apartment of 107.936 square meters (hereinafter “instant 32 square meters”), and the part of the shortage in the share of the co-owned site is 63,173,00 square meters in the site price for the above 32 square buildings at the time of each sale contract is as seen earlier. Accordingly, when the Defendant calculated the sale price to be returned to the right holder of 32 square meters of this case, each of the above 86,714 won (0.44,243 won (63,170,00/36.10 won).

However, among the 32 square right holders of this case, 5 (hereinafter omitted) etc., from among the 32 square right holders of this case, they own the apartment of each corresponding Dong and lake as indicated in the Dong and lake column among the claims by the plaintiff and the representative, and their co-ownership is presumed to be equal, so the amount of the purchase price to be returned by the defendant to the above 32 square right holders of this case shall be 43,357 won (86,714 wonx1/2) which is equivalent to 1/2 of the above returned amount to the above 32 square right holders of this case.

(B) In the case of a supplied area of 150.5592 square meters (45 square meters)

Of the Plaintiff P and the designated parties, the part of the shortage in the share of the co-owned site is 0.7218 square meters in the case of the Plaintiff’s first purchaser and the transferee to whom the right to claim the price reduction against the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as “the instant 45 square right holders”) from the Plaintiff’s first purchaser of the sale contract for the area of 150.592 square meters (45 square meters) among the apartment of this case among the apartment of this case, the part of the shortage in the share of the co-owned site is 0.7218 square meters, and 91,767,00 won in the site price for the above Pyeongtaek apartment at the time of each sale contract is 91,767,000 as seen earlier. Accordingly, when the Defendant calculated the sale price to be returned to the right holders of the instant 45 square apartment of this case, each of the above 1,258,98 won (0.7218 m1,74235 won per 1m) (916,260 won).

However, among the 45 square right holders of this case, 38 (hereinafter omitted) co-ownership of the apartment units of each corresponding Dong and lake as indicated in the Dong and lake column among the claims filed by the plaintiff and the representative, and the co-ownership share is presumed to be equal, so the purchase price to be returned by the defendant to the above 45 square right holders of this case shall be 629,494 won (1,258,988 won x1/2) which is equivalent to 1/2 of the above returned amount to the above 45 square right holders of this case.

(4) Sub-determination

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff P and the selected parties the amount indicated in the claim amount column among the claims amount by the plaintiff and the selected parties, as well as damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from the date indicated in the balance payment column among the claims amount by the plaintiff and the selected parties, until May 18, 2007, which is the service date of the complaint of this case, and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment.

3. Determination on the claim for management expenses by the council of occupants' representatives of the plaintiff PS apartment

According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay to the council of occupants' representatives of the plaintiff PS apartment (management expenses of KRW 22,788,870 + late 4,722,870 + late 22,78,870) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from May 19, 2007 to the date of full payment, as the plaintiff seeks from May 19, 2007 to the date of full payment.

4. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiffs' claims are accepted on the grounds of the reasons.

Judges fixed-term

Judges Jong-ho