2. Ma○○

3. Newly operated ○

Law Firm Gyeongpon, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Attorney Gangnam-gu, Justice Kang-gu, Justice Kim o-ok, Justice Kim Du-ok, Justice Kim Do-ho, this phenomenon, Lee Dong-ho, and Kim Il-il

Young, Kim Jong-hee, the maximum realization, Lee Jong-o, Kim Jong-chul

Attorney Choi Han-han et al.

Attorney Choi Jin-hwan

Ma○○○

Law Firm (Bae, Kim & Lee LLC)

Attorney Park Jong-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

A. As from February 11, 2010, Plaintiff 16, 409, and 00 won to Plaintiff ○○○, and as from February 11, 201:

B. 16, 409, 000 won to the Plaintiff Ansan-○, and on this basis from February 8, 2010:

C. From February 7, 2010 to Plaintiff New ○○○, KRW 16, 577, and 00, as well as to this.

By August 25, 2015, 5% per annum and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment shall be paid respectively.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person.

A. The Defendant is an executor and a contractor of a project that newly constructs and sells Young-type Hete apartment (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”) which is a multi-family housing with a scale of 1,628 units on the ground of the 593m square meters on the ground of the 1,628m multi-family housing in the Young-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Young-gu, Young-gu, Young-gu, Incheon Metropolitan Free Economic Zone (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”).

B. On February 11, 2010, the Defendant concluded each of the sales contracts (hereinafter referred to as the “sale contract in this case”) that sell the instant apartment 109-dong 109-dong 109-dong 328, 180, and 00-dong 111-dong 11-dong ○○○ and February 8, 2010 to KRW 328,180, 180,000 for the sale price, and Plaintiff New○ and 112-dong 12-dong ○ ○ 112-dong apartment on February 7, 2010 for the sale price of KRW 331,540,00.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the purport of the whole legal theory

2. Determination

A. The parties’ assertion

1) Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

The Defendant violated the Act on Fair Labeling and Advertising (hereinafter referred to as the “Indication and Advertising Act”) by making false and exaggerated advertisements as if the third-stage landing bridge will be opened by 2014 at the time of the instant sales contract. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiffs, who made false and exaggerated advertisements, the amount equivalent to 5% of the price of the instant sales contract as property damages or consolation money suffered by the Plaintiffs due to such false and exaggerated advertisements, and to pay 5% per annum as prescribed by the Civil Act from the date of the sales contract to the date the judgment is sentenced, and 20% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment.

2) Summary of the Defendant’s assertion

The Incheon Metropolitan City, etc. has a specific plan to construct a third-party landing bridge, and the above plan has not been formally withdrawn or revoked. Based on this, the Defendant advertised that the third party landing bridge will be scheduled to be constructed, and on the other hand, notified the revocation or possibility of its modification. Therefore, the Defendant did not make an advertisement about the third party landing bridge different from the fact, or excessively unrefised advertisement.

In addition, since the sales advertisement of the apartment of this case did not enter into the sales contract of this case, there is no causal relationship between the above advertisement and the plaintiffs' sales contract, and even if the defendant is liable for damages, there is no specific proof as to the amount of damages of the plaintiffs. Thus, the plaintiffs' claim is without merit.

B. Determination

1) Occurrence of liability for damages

A) "False or exaggerated advertising" under Article 3 (1) 1 of the Act refers to an advertisement that is false or exaggerated to the fact and is likely to mislead consumers by deceiving or misleading consumers, and thus likely to undermine fair trade order. Whether an advertisement is likely to deceive or mislead consumers shall be objectively determined on the basis of the total and ultimate increase that ordinary consumers receive the advertisement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Du6965, Jun. 27, 2003; 2009Da67979, 67986, Aug. 26, 2010).

B) In full view of the purport of the entire arguments in the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 6, 7, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, it is recognized that the defendant advertised the third-stage landing as follows (hereinafter referred to as "sale advertising of this case").

(1) A bridge connected to the Cheongra zone is marked on the relevant viewdo, traffic system map, development plan map, etc., and "third-party landing bridge" or "third-party landing bridge (in progress)" or "third-party landing bridge (in progress).

② “The third landing bridge” or “the third landing bridge (in the process of promotion)” on the instant apartment path, Kathrogs, etc.

(3) The term "a newspaper technician of the title "" shall be quoted at the speed of construction of the third landing bridge in Incheon.

(4) south of the purport that it is the third-party image of a 3-party teaching bridge and the scheduled construction of a 3-party teaching bridge at the relevant website, sales advertising image, publicity articles, etc.

(5) Pooly City: “At the same time, third-party landing bridge (the scheduled date in 2014) is directly connected to Cheongra - Seoul will be the number of floors with one storys, if the third-party landing bridge (the scheduled date in 2014) is directly connected to Cheongna Highway.”

6) The head of Si/Gun/Gu may change or cancel any metropolitan transport network, such as metropolitan transport, railroad, etc., as part of the relevant agency’s implementation of the project, at the bottom of the sales website of the instant apartment complex, the Si/Gun/Gu-spathy-spathy-spathy-spathy-spathy-spathy-spathy-spathy-spathy-spathy-to-spathy-spathy-spathy-spathy-spathy-to-spathy-spathy-to-spathy-to-spathy-spathy-to-spathy-spath-to-spath-spath-s

C) Even if the advertisement of this case is false and exaggerated advertising as referred to in Article 3 (1) 1 of the Advertisement and Advertising Act, the following circumstances, i.e., the whole purport of the pleading, which are acknowledged as being integrated into the evidence Nos. 1 through 16 (including Serial number), since it is difficult for the defendant to use the apartment lot No. 3 in the land lot No. 3 in the land lot No. 1 in the apartment lot No. 3 in the apartment lot No. 4 in the apartment lot No. 201, the apartment lot No. 3 in the apartment lot No. 3 in the apartment lot No. 3 in the apartment lot No. 4 in the apartment lot No. 2014, the apartment lot No. 3 in the apartment lot No. 3 in the apartment lot No. 2014 in the apartment lot No. 3 in the apartment lot No. 2014, the apartment lot No. 3 in the city No.

In light of the fact that there is a concern for misleadingly knowing that the terms and conditions are not a big problem, it is reasonable to deem that the part concerning the third-stage landing among the instant sales advertisements is a false or exaggerated advertisement as stipulated in Article 3(1) of the Advertisement and Advertising Act. Therefore, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiffs for damages under Article 10(1) of the Advertisement and Advertising Act.

D) As to this, the Defendant alleged that there exists no causal link between the instant advertising and the instant sales contract by the Plaintiffs, but generally, considering the fact that advertisements of large construction companies, which have been socially designated as the Defendant, such as the Defendant, form a considerable trust and expectation among the general public, and that it is not easy for consumers to find objective reports or information and make reasonable and reasonable judgment because they have no easy to find information, such as the instant apartment sales contract, even though other factors than the instant sales advertisement, such as benefit from capital gains tax reduction or exemption, have influenced the conclusion of the instant sales contract, the causal relationship between the instant sales advertisement and the instant sales contract cannot be deemed to be severed, and thus, the Defendant’s above assertion is rejected.

2) Scope of damages

A) With respect to the plaintiffs' claim for damages on the property, the property damage suffered by the plaintiffs due to the plaintiffs' false and exaggerated advertisements shall not be the difference between the whole expenses for acquiring apartment buildings or the price of the apartment of this case actually sold under the conditions as shown in the defendant's false and exaggerated advertisements, unless there are other special circumstances, but the difference between the sale price of the apartment of this case and the price of the apartment of this case actually sold under the conditions as shown in the defendant's false and exaggerated advertisements, and it shall be the difference between the appropriate quantity of the apartment of this case where there was no false or exaggerated advertisements at the time of entering into the sales contract of this case. However, there is no assertion or proof by the plaintiffs on the circumstances that can calculate this, it is difficult to determine the specific amount of property damage of the plaintiffs in this case.

B) Accordingly, in light of the relationship between the parties, which can be acknowledged by comprehensively considering the purport of the entire pleadings and arguments as to the amount of property damage in proximate causal relation with the false and exaggerated advertisements, the amount of the plaintiffs' property loss year is set at 5% of the purchase price of the apartment of this case, taking into account the relation between the tort and the parties, the background that caused property damage, the nature of the damage, the circumstances after the damage occurred, etc.

C) In addition, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiffs' claim for consolation money was restored to the plaintiffs' mental suffering due to compensation for property damage as seen above, and there is no special circumstance that the plaintiffs suffered irrecoverable mental suffering due to the above compensation for property damage, or there is no evidence to support that the defendant knew or could have known such special circumstance. Thus, the plaintiffs' claim for consolation money is without merit without need to further examine.

3) Sub-decisions

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay 16,409,00 won ( = 328, 180, 00, 500 x 5%) to the plaintiff Lee ○○○, the amount of 16,409,000 won ( = 328,180, 000 x 5%) from February 1, 201, the date of tort, and to pay 16,57,000 won annually from the date of tort to the plaintiff Shin○○○, which is 16,57,00 won ( = 331,540, 000 x 5%) as prescribed by the Civil Act from February 8, 2010 to the date of tort, as well as to pay 25% annual damages from the date of each lawsuit, which is 10 to the date of each of the five days of tort. < Amended by Act No. 10335, Feb. 25, 2010>

C. Judgment on the declaration of provisional execution

Article 213(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that a judgment on a claim for property right shall be sentenced that a security may be made ex officio or without providing a provisional execution, unless there is a reasonable ground not to attach a declaration of provisional execution. In this case ex officio, according to the purport of the whole theory, as to whether there is a reasonable ground not to attach a declaration of provisional execution, the plaintiffs failed to pay the balance, etc. of the sale price under the contract for sale in this case to the defendant, and the amount seems to significantly exceed the amount of the damage claim in this case. Thus, in light of the fact that the sale contract in this case is not cancelled, the plaintiffs are liable to pay the balance of the sale price to the defendant, unless there is a reasonable ground not to attach a declaration of provisional execution, and therefore, a declaration of provisional execution should not be attached in this case.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiffs' claims are reasonable, and each of them shall be accepted, and the burden of litigation costs shall be borne by the winning plaintiffs in the lawsuit of this case in accordance with Articles 99 and 100 of the Civil Procedure Act by taking into account all the circumstances revealed in the pleadings. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Park Jin-han

Judges Yellow Jin-Jin