[1] In a case where a new airport construction project operator in the Seoul Metropolitan area provided false information on the installation of a store lease agreement to the persons at the negotiation stage of a store Gap, thereby violating the duty of disclosure or duty of explanation under the good faith principle, and the Incheon Metropolitan City Incheon Metropolitan City Mayor also promotes and prevents the lease of Gap, the case holding that Gap and the Incheon Metropolitan City Mayor are jointly and severally liable for damages to lessees

[2] The case holding that where the amount of damages suffered by the store lessee due to the establishment of a Mano-day shop tenant is first given the lessee an opportunity to prove the amount of damages, and if the lessee neglects the burden of proof or lacks the burden of proof, it shall be deliberated on the specific amount of damages by demanding the lessee to prove it, and it shall be calculated by taking into account all the relevant indirect facts where it

[3] In a case where there are grounds for a part of the joint tortfeasor intentionally committing a tort by taking advantage of the victim's care, whether other joint tortfeasors who do not have such grounds may assert comparative negligence (affirmative)

[1] The case holding that the new airport construction project implementer in the Seoul Metropolitan area violated the duty of disclosure or duty of explanation under the good faith principle as to important circumstances that may affect the decision-making of lessees by exceeding ordinary publicity and business activities, and the Incheon Metropolitan City Federation also did not notify Gap of accurate and sufficient information about the installation of the Pms within the two-stage period, and provided Gap with false information that the Pms will be completed within the two-stage period, and thereby, Gap violated the duty of good faith principle to promote and block the lease of the lessee and lessee, and thus Gap and the Incheon Metropolitan City Federation are jointly and severally liable for compensation for damages caused by the provision of false information that the Pms will be completed within the two-stage period without notifying Gap of accurate and sufficient information about the Pms installation.

[2] The case holding that since the amount of damages suffered by the store lessees due to the establishment of a Mano-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-

[3] In a case of tort damage compensation, when offsetting negligence by taking advantage of the victim's negligence, a person who intentionally committed a tort by taking advantage of the victim's negligence cannot claim that the person who intentionally reduced his/her liability by taking advantage of the victim's negligence should immediately be held liable due to the victim's negligence, but the tortfeasor who does not have such reason may claim

[1] Articles 750 and 760 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 750 and 760 of the Civil Act / [3] Articles 396, 760, and 763 of the Civil Act

[2] Supreme Court Decision 94Da5372 delivered on February 9, 1996 (Gong1996Sang, 884), Supreme Court Decision 96Da38971 delivered on July 10, 1998 (Gong1998Ha, 2054), Supreme Court Decision 2002Da6951, 6968 delivered on June 24, 2004 (Gong2004Ha, 1201), Supreme Court Decision 2004Da48508 Delivered on November 24, 2005 / [3] Supreme Court Decision 96Da3013 delivered on October 25, 196 (Gong196Ha, 3434), Supreme Court Decision 2005Da63979 decided Oct. 25, 2005)

Plaintiff 1 and 39 others (Law Firm Kinh, Attorneys Park Im-hoo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff 41 and 2 others (Law Firm Kin, Attorneys Park Im-pat et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff 44 and four others

The Incheon Metropolitan City Mayor and one other (Law Firm Hun-woo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2006Na57522, 57539, 57546, 57553 decided May 2, 2008

The main claim part of the judgment of the court below is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. Defendant 2 corporation's appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant Corporation (hereinafter “Defendant Corporation”)

A. As to the establishment of joint tort

In the case of joint tort under Article 760 of the Civil Act where several persons jointly inflict damages on other persons, the joint tort is established without requiring not only the conspiracy among the actors, but also the common perception. However, if the joint tort is objectively related to the joint tort, it is sufficient if the joint tort occurred, and the damage is caused by the joint act related thereto. (See Supreme Court Decisions 2001Da2181, May 8, 2001; 2005Da47014, 47021, 47038, Jan. 26, 2006; 2005Da47039, Jan. 26, 2006; 309, etc.). Aid and abetting in joint tort refers to all direct and indirect acts that facilitate the tort, and it shall be 309, etc. under the premise that the person obligated to act can act or facilitate the tort due to omission, and it shall be 309,009,009,09.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the defendant 2 corporation (hereinafter "the defendant company") violated the duty of disclosure or explanation under the principle of good faith as to important circumstances that may affect the decision-making by going beyond ordinary propaganda and business activities, and that the defendant corporation violated the duty of disclosure or explanation under the principle of good faith as to the plaintiffs' obligation to compensate for damages caused by the violation of the duty of joint tort, since it did not make any specific and detailed notification or explanation of accurate and sufficient information about the establishment of the Pms (Pms) to the plaintiffs at the negotiation stage of the instant lease agreement without notifying or explaining the plaintiffs of the accurate and sufficient information about the establishment of the Pms (Pms).

In light of the above legal principles and records, the court below's fact-finding and judgment are just and acceptable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles or misunderstanding of legal principles.

B. Regarding the scope of damages

Property damage caused by an illegal act refers to the difference between the property condition that would have existed without the illegal act and the current property status of the illegal act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Da5372, Feb. 9, 1996; 96Da38971, Jul. 10, 1998; 96Da38971, Jun. 10, 1998); and where it is difficult to prove specific amount of damage in light of the nature of the case where the occurrence of property damage was recognized and the maximum amount of damage was rare, the court may determine the amount of damage in proximate causal relation between the parties, which was revealed by the result of examination of evidence and the entire purport of oral argument, in full view of all the indirect facts related to the situation where property damage was caused by the illegal act and the damage, the nature of the damage, and all the circumstances after the damage was caused (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Da69584, Jun. 24, 2004).

In light of the above legal principles and records, the damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the defendants' illegal acts in this case shall be the difference between the lease value of the commercial facilities in this case in the case where a Pms is installed and the lease value of the commercial facilities in this case in the present condition where no Pms is installed. It is difficult to deem that the maximum number of damages is not revealed and specific amount of damages is difficult in view of the nature of the case, and it is also difficult to prove the specific amount of damages. Furthermore, the plaintiffs' request for appraisal of the difference between the value of the commercial facilities in this case and the rent in the case where a Pms is installed, along with an inquiry by a public appraisal agency in which the plaintiffs can appraise the matters claimed by the plaintiffs. Thus, the court below should first give the plaintiffs an opportunity to prove the amount of damages, and if the plaintiffs are negligent in proving the amount of damages or lack of proof, it shall deliberate on the specific amount of damages by demanding the plaintiffs to prove it

Nevertheless, under the premise that it is difficult to prove the specific amount of damages without examining the specific amount of damages, the court below determined 25% of each of the rents of this case as damages on the basis of the presumption that the liquidity inflow effect caused by the installation of PE would have a great impact on the market value of the commercial facilities of this case. Such judgment below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the scope of damages and failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations in violation of the rules of evidence, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

C. As to offsetting negligence

The comparative negligence set-off system under the Civil Act is intended to take into account the obligee’s equivalent principle as to the occurrence of damages in accordance with the principle of equity in a case where the obligee fails to fulfill the duty required under the principle of good faith. Thus, even in a case of damages arising from a tort, if the damage was caused or expanded due to such negligence, it shall be deemed that there was negligence on the part of the victim, and if the victim was found to have been negligent, the court shall take into account the liability and amount of the damages, and if the obligor’s negligence is acknowledged based on litigation materials even if the obligor did not assert the victim’s negligence, the court shall ex officio examine and determine it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Da30113, Oct. 25, 1996; 201Da79518, Oct. 25, 2002). Meanwhile, in a case of damages due to a tort, a person who intentionally committed the tort by taking advantage of the victim’s negligence can not claim such tort as 390.

According to the records, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiffs did not properly confirm the plans for the establishment of PEs to the defendant corporation, who is the main agent of the establishment, and they concluded each of the instant lease agreements with the defendant corporation beliefing only the explanation and advertisement of the defendant corporation, and such circumstance affected the occurrence and expansion of the damages in this case. Since the defendant corporation did not have intentionally committed a tort by using the plaintiffs' care, the court below should have taken this into account ex officio as long as it acknowledged the above errors by the

Nevertheless, the court below erred in misunderstanding the legal principles on offsetting negligence, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and it is clear that the court below's failure to take this into account in examining and determining the existence and scope of the liability for damages of this case.

2. As to the grounds of appeal by the plaintiffs (excluding plaintiffs 44-48)

A. As to the establishment of tort

In a case where specific facts about important matters in the advertisement of goods are falsely notified in a manner to the extent that they can be criticized in light of the duty of good faith in the advertisement of goods, it constitutes a deception. However, the mere exaggeration in the advertisement is accompanied by a false representation in the advertisement is not sufficient to the extent that it can be perceived in light of the general commercial practices and the good faith principle (see Supreme Court Decisions 9Da55601, May 29, 2001; 2009Da1313, April 23, 2009, etc.).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the facts comprehensively based on the employment evidence, and held that the fact that certain facilities and stores will come into a commercial building is a premise for the profitability judgment of the commercial building, and therefore, the operation of the commercial building is possible, and the matters such as how the profit would come into operation and how would ultimately be decided by the responsibility and judgment of the plaintiffs who are investors, and that the act of propaganda and advertisement as if the defendant company decided to install the aviation experience facilities and observation team in the commercial facility of this case does not constitute a tort.

On the other hand, this part of the judgment of the court below is a premise for determining the profitability of the commercial building as to whether or not the establishment of the aviation experience facilities and observation team for the commercial facilities of this case is confirmed, and it cannot be deemed that false advertisements do not constitute a tort as a matter of course. Thus, according to the records, the defendant company planned to install the commercial facilities of this case through consultation with the defendant corporation at the time of the application for approval of the implementation plan for the new airport construction project in Seoul Metropolitan area, and included the application for approval of the implementation plan. In fact, the defendant company requested the defendant corporation to establish and operate the promotion exhibition center (referring to the aviation experience facilities and observation team) of the defendant corporation of this case on the 8 and 9th floor of the commercial facilities of this case. The defendant corporation did not comply with the construction cost burden. Thus, even if the sale advertisement or publicity of the above facilities of the defendant company was used as an exaggerated expression that became final and conclusive under the execution plan as above, it cannot be viewed as a violation of the rules of evidence in light of the duty of trust and good faith.

B. As to the cancellation of a contract by deception

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the facts of the judgment after comprehensively taking into account the relevant employment evidence, and determined that if the publicity and advertisement of the defendant company on the completion of the Pms is obvious objectively to be false or exaggerated advertisements, and considering the degree of the falsity and exaggeration and the share of the Pms in determining the value of the commercial facilities in this case, such falsity and division cannot be deemed to be within the limit socially acceptable in light of the general commercial practices and the good faith principle, but it is not enough to view it as being a deception which

In light of the records, we affirm the fact-finding and judgment of the court below as just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

C. Regarding the scope of damages

The court below's decision that the specific amount of damages is 25% of each of the rents in this case is unlawful as seen above. The illegality in calculating the amount of damages in the court below is not only the part against the defendant Corporation but also the part against the plaintiffs which affected the conclusion of the judgment against the plaintiffs. Thus, the part against the plaintiffs in the judgment below is also reversed as well as the part against the defendant Corporation.

3. As to the appeal by the defendant company

Defendant Company did not submit a statement of grounds for appeal within the statutory period and did not state the grounds for appeal in the petition of appeal.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the main claim part of the judgment of the court below is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination, and the appeal by the defendant company is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Cha Han-sung (Presiding Justice)