2012 Gohap3422 Damage

Attached Table 1. Articles 9, 13, 23, 25, 30, 49, 83, 116, 119, 126, and 131 of the List

same as the entry.

Bright Development Co., Ltd

May 6, 2015

June 3, 2015

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The defendant shall set forth in Attached Table 1. The plaintiffs listed in Attached Table 9, 13, 23, 25, 25, 30, 49, 83, 116, 119, 126, and 131

[Attachment 2. As to the corresponding money and each equivalent money recorded by the plaintiff in the column for claim for the list

From the day after the date of service of the copy of the complaint of this case until the date of pronouncement of the judgment of this case, 5% per annum; and

C. By the date of full payment, 20% interest per annum shall be paid.

1. Basic facts

A. Status of the parties

The defendant constructed and sold 9 units of apartment from around to on the ground of 'Ma Ma* + +64 units of apartment under the name of 'Ma Ma 2,164 units of apartment (hereinafter "the apartment of this case"). The plaintiffs from May 2009 to May 2010 from the defendant.

4. Until the time, there are several buyers who purchased individual households among the apartment buildings of this case, or those who succeed to the status of the buyer from the initial buyer (hereinafter referred to as the "sale contract of this case" in total between the initial buyer and the defendant).

나. 피고의 분양광고 피고는 2007. 4. 경부터 이 사건 아파트를 분양하는 과정에서, 분양안내서, 분양관련 인터넷 홈페이지, 각종 홍보책자에 이 사건 아파트와 2단지 아파트, % % 백화점, 공공청사, 랜드마크타워, 1. 2km의 워킹 갤러리 등이 모두 완성된 상태의 모형을 모델하우스에 비치해 놓거나 위와 같이 완성된 상태의 조감도를 각종 홍보물에 게재하면서, 아래와 같은 내용으로 이 사건 아파트가 위치한 ◈◇3지구 전체를 " # # + + " 라고 표현하고, % % 백화점, 55층 규모의 랜드마크타워, 각종 병원, 복합 쇼핑몰, 공공청사와 학교, 녹지와 워킹 갤러리 등이 조성된 다기능 복합단지가 될 것이라는 취지의 광고를 하였다 .

· the maximum complex city of Korea

· As at the end of the PP city representative project zone formation in connection with the east department stores, complex theaters, and complex theaters: A construction plan and consultation on occupancy of major facilities: approximately 22,031: Mebox (9), business facilities, sales facilities, sports facilities, 8,391 area of site of department stores: Mebbox: Construction commencement in the traffic impact assessment process, beginning in 208: At the beginning of 2008: higher apartment price increase rate in the second half of the year 2010 (or 1,4350,000 won per square day), between Dong department stores - 1,4350,00 won per square day; - 1,1,000 per square day; 1,000,000 won per square day; 8,391 square meters;

The area of the site of the Domerdi District Office: 1,274 square meters, the complex area of the public office site of the center is about 20,00 square meters, and the introduced facilities: 10 institutions, such as Chungcheongbuk-do Office, PP viewing and Heung-gu Office, etc., 2021, the formation of a comprehensive educational city among the complex education centers of the PPP City Basic Urban Planning Education Center in 2021, the formation of the highest comprehensive educational city among the education centers of the PP City Basic Urban Planning Do in 2021, £« specialized educational institutions in the commercial area, + specialized educational institutions in the commercial area.

- The Republic of Korea’s Mabro Mabro Mabro Ma Ma Mabro Ma + ＋ Mabro complex development complex to maximize the convenience of life through organic linkage of various functions, such as residential function, business function, commercial function, and public function.

. MaMa* + On the basis of media centers, service leras, etc., the 55th high-rises and the 4,300 large-scale complex major complexes, including department stores, specialized clinic centers, complex shopping mallss, etc. are set up around the sites, schools, and parks of administrative agencies, such as public office buildings of a 20,00 square size.

MaMaMa* + in the complex, three public office building sites in size of 20,000 square meters.

…§§§ + will be completed at the end of 2010.

Contents of a public relations book in the form of a magazine (as of July 23, 2007)

The main complex of 4,300 households consisting of the Grand Mark 1 of the 55th height and the 37 to 45th, and the 4,300 households is scheduled to be included in the department stores, various hospitals, complex shopping mallss, etc. In addition, creating public office buildings and schools of a size of 20,000 square meters, more than 6,000 square meters, parks, etc., and future-type complexes representing the Republic of Korea will be developed as multi-functional complexes and future-type cities representing the Republic of Korea are expected to be shot. Meet. Mes Mes Mes Mes Mes Mes Mes Mes Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Me

In the form of magazines, ‘Public Relations Bookbook ( August 2008)' is defined as ‘Public Relations Book: Me. Me. Me. Me. Me. Me. Me. Me. Me. Me. Me. Me. Me. Me. Me. Me. Me. Me. Me. Me. Me. Me. Me. Me. Me. Me. Me. Me. Me. Me. Me. Me. Me. Me. Me. Me. Me. Me..

- 1 block, including the % department store scheduled to begin October, will be completed in July 2010, and will be pre-determined on the world.

The advertisement in the Economic Examination every day on August 13, 2009

- PPO Mes Ma+ 300 apartment units owned by the company of the highest high-tech special pre-sale (45,9) apartment units (45,9) in the first-come, first-come, first-served apartment units (45, 9) in the company of the 300 generation, % of 10 department store occupants (201), PP, and civil petition integrated viewing companies, 5 minutes in the Western 5, 55th, Grandmarking adjacent to the 55th, PPIC, 10 minutes in the PP airport, river clinic semiconductor vicinity, and the confirmation of the high-tech medical complex located in the Chungcheongnam 27th of August 2009, and the daily economic newspaper advertisements, PPO + 2 + 164 rental houses, 3% of the scheduled special pre-sale public office buildings located in the 25th of May 25th of the year-209, and 30% of the scheduled special pre-sale apartment units located in the 164th of September.

· The development plan indicated in various promotional materials may be modified in the future with the present plan and proposed matters, and the contractor shall be fully aware of such plan and shall not raise an objection thereafter.

- The completion of commercial facilities in a complex and the timing of occupancy can differ from the timing of apartment occupancy. Various facilities (public office buildings, schools, road networks, high-priced roads, rivers, squares, green-belt bridges) indicated on public relations roads, notices, etc. may be modified in accordance with the permission-granting authorities or national policies.

- The connection between planning and project sites of parks, scenic greenbeltss, open vacant lots, squares, rivers, roads, etc. located in and around the neighborhood may be changed at the time of various deliberations and authorization of implementation plans by the relevant authorities on March 26, 2007.

D. On June 7, 2007, I suggest that PP*** + ② 1772 households are sold in the second half of this year of June 7, 2007. On November 2007, PP, which is scheduled to be supplied, the first (1.4 million won per square year) and the second (1.4 million won per square year) are more than that of the first (1.4 million won).

On August 1, 2007, the article of Economic Newspapers is to be published every day on August 1, 2007. Between Between B & B, who is selling in lots, Meetal Meet Meet Meet Meet Meet Meet Meet Meet Meet Meet Meet Meet Meet Meet Meet Meet Meet Meet Meet Meet Meet Meet Meet Meet Meet Me

In addition, the Internet newspaper article No. 50% of the existing factory site is donated to PP, and the remaining site is a plan to build a complex complex in which large department stores, theme shopping mall, the convention center, residential facilities, etc. are located. For this purpose, % of the contract was entered into between department stores and the commercial facilities in the site. % of the % department store will build department stores and shopping malls in this site by 200 billion won by 2007.

C. The average selling price of the apartment in this case is about KRW 1,139,00 per square meter of 3m of the apartment in this case. The average selling price of the gold fluor apartment in the vicinity of which the sale contract was made at a time similar to the apartment in this case is KRW 7,99,000 per 3m of 3m of 3m of the apartment in this case, and the average selling price of the second bluor apartment in the second bluor of the 2006 m of 3m of 3m of the apartment in this case is KRW 8,310,000 per 3m of 3m of the sales price.

(d) Current status concerning advertisements for sale in lots;

1) The occupancy of the instant apartment was commenced on July 201. The Defendant obtained approval for the alteration of the business plan regarding the apartment complex on October 20, 201, and the apartment complex was integrated into 38 square meters. The apartment complex was sold from April 2012, and the sale price of the apartment complex was set at KRW 8720,00 per 3m3m on the average. The construction of the apartment complex was commenced on April 30, 2012, and was scheduled to be completed on March 2016.

2) On January 10, 2008, at the pP market pP market plenary session of the PP market, three public office building sites donated by the Defendant at the pP market at the pP market at the plenary session of the PP market, and three public office buildings sites, which are donated by the Defendant, are likely to deepen the urban community, so it is difficult to transfer the viewer at the present time. There is no public institution yet embodying the relocation of the PP, but there is an attempt to prepare a comprehensive and detailed plan for attracting public office functions within the site as soon as possible, taking into account the end of December 2009, taking into account that the time of completion of the site development project is the end of December 2009." While the PP market contributed three public office buildings sites within three districts provided by the Defendant around May 2008. However, there is no yet concrete plan for the relocation of public office buildings.

3) On September 15, 2006, the Defendant sold the site of the department store in three districts to 00 shopping companies operating 1% of the department store. The 00 shopping companies originally planned to sell 1% of the unit store around 2010, which is the date of completion of the apartment complex in this case. However, the construction permission was granted on August 2008, but the apartment complex-related facilities were not commenced in two complexes + 2 complex-related facilities, or the impact of the domestic economic situation, etc. The % department store was started around August 2010 and completed around 2012, and the construction of the apartment complex was not commenced on August 24, 2012. The Defendant sold the adjacent apartment site to the 3rd apartment complex-related facilities to the 3rd apartment complex-related public corporation, and the construction of the apartment complex-related public corporation-related public corporation-related public corporation-private complex-related public corporation-related public corporation and the Defendant sold the site to the 3rd.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The employees of the defendant's employees in charge of parcelling-out and the employees of the sales stand-out events consisting of public agencies, such as PP office buildings, % department stores (round July 2010), Grandma of 5th floor size, Grandma of galking, galking, etc., in the vicinity of the apartment of this case through consultation and advertisement for parcelling-out, etc., and deceiving or falsely exaggerated advertising the plaintiffs that the sales price of the apartment of this case should be higher than the apartment of this case. Accordingly, the plaintiffs suffered damages by entering into the sales contract of this case with excessive sales price.

Therefore, as of the time of the sale in lots pursuant to Article 10(1) of the Advertising Act or Article 750 of the Civil Act, the Defendant is obligated to compensate for the appropriate sale price in cases where there was no deception or false or exaggerated advertisement as above, and the difference between the sale price actually paid by the buyer and the sale price actually paid by the buyer. As such, the Defendant seeks partial payment of the amount equivalent to 10% of the sale price by claim

B. Determination

1) Whether it constitutes a tort or a false or exaggerated advertisement

Article 10 (1) of the Act on Labeling and Advertising provides that a business operator, etc. who has committed an unfair labeling or advertising act in violation of the provisions of Article 3 (1) shall be liable for damages caused by such act shall be liable to the damaged person. Article 3 (1) of the Act imposes a duty not to engage in any false or exaggerated labeling or advertising act that is likely to deceive or mislead consumers, and that is likely to undermine fair trade order.

"False or exaggerated advertisement" under Article 3 (1) 1 of the above Act refers to an act of labeling or advertising that is different from the fact or excessively unfasible to the fact and is likely to deceive or mislead 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 of consumers who receive the advertisement in question (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2009Da67979, 67986, Aug. 26, 2010; 2008Du6646, Nov. 13, 2008).

On the other hand, as seen below, it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s advertisement of this case belongs to or is likely to mislead the Plaintiffs, and thus it is likely to undermine fair trade order. Thus, it cannot be viewed as tort under the Civil Act or false and exaggerated advertisements under Article 3(1)1 of the Advertisement and Advertisement Act. The Defendant’s deception due to the Defendant’s breach of duty of disclosure acknowledged under the good faith principle cannot be deemed to exist (see Supreme Court Decision 99Da55601, 5618, May 29, 2001, etc.).

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit. (A) Advertisement related to the occupancy of the PP office building.

The defendant advertised that the apartment of this case is located through various kinds of promotional materials, etc. MaMa + + The public office building was scheduled to move in, and the public office building was publicized as if the PP viewing could be included in the PP. On August 13, 2009, the defendant advertised the apartment of this case to "PP and the petition integrated viewing company", but the PP market stated that the current PP Si office building is currently ? + + + + there is no plan to move to the PP office building, and that the public office building was not specifically relocated.

(5) Comprehensively taking into account the purport of the presentation of the above 1: ① It is possible for the Defendant to modify the 2nd 6th Do government office building plan to enter into the 3th Do government office building plan, ② it is possible for the 2nd 5th Do government office building to enter into the 8th Do government office building plan, ② it is possible for the Defendant to modify the 9th Do government office building plan to enter into the 2nd 6th Do government office building plan, ② it is possible for the 2nd 7th Do government office building plan to enter into the 9th Do government office building plan, ② it is possible for the Defendant to modify the 9th Do government office building plan to enter into the 2nd Do government building plan, ③ it is possible for the 2nd 5th Do government office building plan to enter into the 9th Do government office building plan, ③ it is possible for the Defendant to enter the 2nd 7th Do government office building plan, and the 3th Do government office building plan.

may recognize the facts described as such.

In addition, the development plan indicated in various promotional materials can be modified in the future with the current plan and scheduled matters, and the contractor can not raise any objection later. The Mayor of the PP has expressed that on January 10, 2008, the transfer of the viewing to the public is likely to cause the disturbance of the viewing company, but there is no currently the relocation plan for the viewing company, but a comprehensive and detailed plan for attracting public functions within the same same place. The defendant included the "P viewing" in the promotional video material, but the defendant stated the "P viewing" in the title of the introduction facility, such as the "Northbukdo Office, Soung-gu Office" and the "Special Urban Planning Law" in the PP in the year 2021.

The following circumstances revealed by the above facts: ① even if there was no relocation plan for the PP viewing within 3 districts prior to the conclusion of the sales contract in this case, there was a plan for the creation of an administrative work conducted by the relocation of the public agency at least around that time; ② PP market price was likely to become a public office building in 3 districts, such as imposing three conditions for approval of the project plan on the defendant in accordance with Class 1 district unit planning in 3 districts; ② Introduction of introduced facilities for PP viewing/PP and public office building; ② It is difficult for the defendant to independently conclude the sales contract in this case because it was clearly difficult for the above 3 districts to conclude the sales contract because it was difficult for the above 3 districts to independently move into the public office building after the announcement of the sale contract in this case.

B) Advertisement on the timing of sale and sale price of the apartment complex in the second half of 2007, which was about 6 months after the date of sale of the apartment complex in the second half of 2007, the sale price of the apartment complex in the second half of 2007, was reported through Internet newspapers, etc. around 2007. However, the sale price of the apartment complex in the second complex was set at around April 2012, and the sale price was lower than the sale price of the apartment complex in the second half of 2007.

However, considering the following circumstances, which are acknowledged in Eul evidence No. 1, comprehensively considering the purport of the entire pleadings, i.e., ① the article that the apartment house of two complexes will be sold at a higher selling price than the apartment house of this case in the second half of 2007 is a press report, not an advertisement that the defendant directly produced and distributed, and the publicity materials that the defendant directly produced and distributed are not contained, ② the article reported through Internet newspapers, etc. around 2007, and the specific contents of the article reported through the Internet newspaper, etc., report that the actual apartment house of this case was low in terms of the timing of the sale of the apartment complex of this case and the prospect of the sale price of the apartment house of this case, and if the apartment house of this case is low, it would be likely that the apartment house of this case will be sold at a lower selling price than the apartment house of this case in the second half of 207, and it seems difficult to recognize that the defendant of this case could have induced the plaintiffs by falsely or exaggerated sales price of the apartment complex of this case.

C) Advertisement on the % department store sales time;

The Defendant, through various promotional materials, advertised that the % department store store located in the instant apartment in around 2010, which is the occupancy time of the instant apartment. However, the % department store commenced around August 2010, which is after the actual occupancy time of the instant apartment, as seen earlier.

However, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged as comprehensively considering the overall purport of pleadings, are as follows: (i) around September 15, 2006, the Defendant sold the site of the department store in the district to 00 shopping companies operating 1% department stores; (ii) around August 2008, under the plan to set up 0% department stores around 2010, which is the initial time of the completion of the apartment complex of this case; (iii) around August 2008, the employees of the % department store directly explained about the % department store sales time at the hotel; (iv) while recognizing the fact that the shopping companies scheduled to set up 00 department stores, the Defendant actually sold the site of the department store in the district, and (v) completed construction work around August 2012 after completing the construction work around December 28, 2010.

24. In full view of the fact that % department stores are opened, 4% department stores are to be determined according to the business judgment of 00 shopping companies, and the Defendant is unable to independently make a decision as seen earlier, 5% department stores are notified that the completion of commercial facilities around the apartment of this case and the occupancy time of the apartment of this case can vary through the public announcement of invitation of invitation or the sales contract of this case, etc. as seen earlier, it is difficult to view the Defendant to have made a false or exaggerated advertisement on the first time of % department stores to belong to the Plaintiffs, and the Defendant appears to have made the above advertisement on the basis of the sales contract plan of % department stores.

(d)an advertisement on the timing for completion of a Grandmarking gallon, etc., and on the timing for development in accordance with district unit planning;

The defendant, without specifying the time of completion on the apartment of this case and the apartment complex of this case, the apartment complex of this case, 2% department stores, public office buildings, Grandmarking, 1.2 km of the 2km of the 2km of the 37 to 45 stories of the 55th floor and the 4,300 households of the 4,00 households of the 37 to 45th floor without specifying the time of completion on the above promotional materials, was scheduled to be included in the apartment complex of this case and the apartment complex of this case, the apartment complex of this case, the 2nd unit department department department, department department department department, the Grandmark, the cultural space, public office buildings, school buildings, and the apartment complex of this case where the 2nd km of the 2nd km of the 2nd apartment complex of this case had not been completed at the time of completion on the 2nd 20th 2nd 2nd m20th m.

However, in light of the aforementioned circumstances and the overall arguments, the following circumstances, i.e., it is difficult for the Defendant to make an explicit advertisement to be completed in accordance with the time of occupancy of the apartment in this case. ② In particular, it is anticipated that the sale of apartment complexes in two complexes can be completed at the time of sale and occupancy in the apartment complex in light of the view of the galking, part of the galking, film pipes, etc., and the above galking, etc. can be seen as being delayed due to various internal and external factors, and the completion of the above galking, etc. is delayed (the construction work of the apartment in this case was completed at the time of occupancy of the apartment in this case). ③ It is difficult for the Defendant to develop the apartment complex for the purpose of construction such as hotel, etc. as well as the alteration of the development plan for the apartment complex under the premise that it is difficult to expect all of the above galking model and the development plan for the apartment complex to be completed at the same time.

2) As seen below, it is difficult to recognize the causal relationship between the defendant's sales advertisement and the plaintiffs' conclusion of the sales contract of this case and the damages caused, as seen in this regard, the above assertion by the plaintiffs is without merit.

A) Whether there exists a causal relationship between the sale advertising and the conclusion of the sales contract in this case

Since the plaintiffs entered into the instant parcelling-out contract or the date of individual parcelling-out contract differs respectively from the initial buyer and the time of individual parcelling-out contract differs, it is necessary to claim and prove that the plaintiffs individually and specifically specified each plaintiff in relation to whether they entered into the instant parcelling-out contract due to individual parcelling-out advertisement [for example, the plaintiffs argued that it is false and exaggerated advertising that the % of the % department store tenant tenant tenant tenant tenant tenant tenant tenant tenant tenant tenant tenant tenant tenant tenant tenant tenant tenant tenant tenant tenant tenant tenant tenant tenant tenant tenant tenant tenant tenant tenant tenant tenant tenant tenant tenant tenant tenant tenant tenant tenant tenant tenant tenant tenant tenant tenant tenant tenant tenant tenant tenant tenant tenant tenant tenant tenant tenant tenant tenant tenant, and there is a difference in the reasons and circumstances of the conclusion of the instant parcelling-out contract, and it is difficult for the plaintiffs to find that the second half of 207 apartment tenant tenant tenant tenant tenant tenant tenant tenant tenant tenant tenant tenant tenant tenant tenant tenant tenant tenant tenant tenant tenant tenant tenant tenant tenant tenant tenant tenant tenant tenant tenant tenant tenant tenant tenant tenant tenant tenant tenant tenant tenant tenant tenant tenant tenant tenant.

B) Difference between the conclusion of the instant sales contract and losses

As examined in the above paragraph (A), since both the time of entering into the instant parcelling-out contract and the time of individual parcelling-out advertisement are different, and the process is different for each Plaintiff to conclude the contract, it is necessary to individually and specifically specify each Plaintiff as to how the Plaintiffs actually suffered any loss due to the conclusion of the instant parcelling-out contract, and to assert and prove that each Plaintiff actually suffered any loss (the impact on the conclusion of the instant parcelling-out contract may vary depending on each individual parcelling-out advertisement, so the scope of damages by each Plaintiff may vary). However, as seen above, the Plaintiffs did not separately and specifically claim and prove the damages incurred due to the conclusion of the instant parcelling-out contract as well as the difference between the adequate parcelling-out price and the actual parcelling-out price.

The Plaintiffs claim payment of the amount equivalent to 10% of the sales price by asserting that damages corresponding to the difference have occurred by concluding a sales contract at a higher selling price than the appropriate selling price due to the Defendant’s advertisement for sale in lots. However, there is no assertion or proof as to the specific amount of damages.

4) Sub-decisions

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion has no reason to view it as multiple mothers.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiffs' claims of this case are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Song-young et al.

Judges Song Jae-ok

Judges Kim Kim-soo