분양대금
1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:
The defendant 352,068,651 Won and 125,182 among the plaintiff.
1. The reasons why the court shall explain this part of the basic facts are as follows.
In addition to adding the part of the claim, it is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act
1) From November 7, 2011, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking compensation for damages, alleging that the number of buyers of the instant apartment from November 7, 201, had 700, cancelled or cancelled the sales contract on the ground of the lack of infrastructure of the instant apartment, etc., and sought restitution of the sales price, etc. as its original state, by asserting that the Plaintiff had made a false or exaggerated advertisement as if the Plaintiff had been aware that the development project, such as the construction of the third-party landing bridge, would not be implemented as the content of the sales advertisement.
[2] On February 1, 2013, the court of first instance accepted the main claim on February 1, 2013, and ordered the Plaintiff to compensate for damages equivalent to 12% of the sales price on the ground that the advertisement of the third smoke bridge between the apartment complex and the Incheon Cheongbu District constitutes a false or exaggerated advertisement under Article 3(1) of the Act on Fair Labeling and Advertising. 3) The appellate court (Seoul High Court Decision 2013Na2368, 2012Gahap1266, 12449, 2049, hereinafter referred to as "related lawsuit"). The court of first instance accepted the main claim on February 1, 2013, but held that the Plaintiff's sales price of the third smoke bridge portion constitutes a false or exaggerated advertisement under Article 3(1) of the Act on Fair Labeling and Advertising, which is equivalent to 12% of the sales price [3) the judgment of the court of first instance 2013Na2368, 2013 or 23713
On May 28, 2015, both appeals were filed by both parties. Of the above appellate judgment, the part of the appeal filed by the defendant as the plaintiff became final and conclusive on May 28, 2015.
Supreme Court Decision 2014Da57228 Decided May 28, 2015