청구이의
1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a contractor and a contractor of a new project that newly constructs and sells AZ apartment (hereinafter “instant apartment”) on the ground of the Incheon Metropolitan City Free Economic Zone AYB block with a scale of 1,628 units, and the Defendants concluded each contract for the sale of the instant apartment with the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).
B. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the remaining Defendants, other than Defendant A, M, and L, seeking the sale price of the instant apartment, options construction cost, indemnity amount, and damages for delay.
Accordingly, the judgment of the court of first instance was rendered to some defendants, and the remaining defendants are pending in the court of first instance.
The Defendants filed a claim against the Plaintiff for return of the sales price or damages on the ground that the Plaintiff’s advertising of the instant apartment (hereinafter “instant advertising”) is false or exaggerated advertising. The Seoul High Court Decision 2013Na2368, 2013Na23695 (combined), 2013Na23701 (Joint), 2013Na23718 (Consolidated), and 2013Na23718 (Joint) (hereinafter “prior judgment”) rendered on July 10, 2014 should be deemed to be false or exaggerated advertising of the instant apartment advertising. As such, the part concerning BA among the advertising of the instant sales, the Plaintiff is liable to compensate the Defendants for damages under Article 10(1) of the Act on Fair Labeling and Advertising (hereinafter “Indication Act”), and the amount of the Defendants’ property damage was determined as the amount of the purchase price of the instant apartment (if the amount falls short of the claim amount).
Since then, Supreme Court Decision 2014Da57228, 2014Da57235, 2014Da57235, 2014Da57242, 2014Da57242, and 2014Da57259, Decided May 28, 2015, became final and conclusive by a judgment.
C. The Defendants, who decided to issue a seizure and collection order, are the Plaintiff Company on January 8, 2016 based on the judgment prior to the instant case.