(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2013.2.15.선고 2010가합16705 판결

1. The Defendant shall pay to Plaintiff Ha○○○ and 74 others an amount calculated by applying each ratio of 5% per annum from the day following the corresponding day to February 15, 2013, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The remaining plaintiffs' claims except the plaintiffs in paragraph 1 and the plaintiffs' respective claims in paragraph 1 are dismissed, respectively.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 60% of the portion arising between the plaintiffs in paragraph (1) and the defendant is borne by the plaintiffs in paragraph (1) and 40% by the defendant, respectively, and the remainder between the plaintiffs and the defendant except the plaintiffs in paragraph (1) are borne by the remaining plaintiffs except the plaintiffs in paragraph (1).

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

Purport of claim

The defendant shall have the amount corresponding to each claim stated in the column of "amount of damage" in the attached Form No. 1 to the plaintiffs and each of them.

The purport of the claim by the person on April 28, 201 of this case from the day after the day corresponding to the "date of occupancy" in the above table.

Until the delivery date of a copy of the application for change, 5% per annum, and 20% per annum from the following day to the date of complete payment.

each amount shall be paid in accordance with each ratio.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

가. 피고는 용인시 기흥구 ○○동 ▩▩▩▩ △△마을 * * 단지 □□□□□□ 아파트 ( 이하 ' 이 사건 아파트 ' 라고 한다 ) 건설사업의 시행사로서 이 사건 아파트를 분양한 회사이고, 원고들은 피고와 이 사건 아파트 각 구분건물에 관하여 분양계약을 체결한 수분양자이거나 수분양자로부터 증여 혹은 매매를 통해 위 각 구분건물을 이전받은 사람들이다 .

B. The plaintiffs (the plaintiffs as stated in paragraph (1) of the attached Table; hereinafter referred to as the "party purchaser's plaintiffs") whose claim on the attached list of damages was partially accepted entered into a sales contract with the defendant on each of the corresponding dates stated in the column of "as of the date of entering into the sales contract" in the same table, and the defendant and the defendant entered into a sales contract on each of the above units of the apartment in this case, and received the registration of ownership transfer on each of the corresponding units of the above table from the defendant on each corresponding date stated in the column of " as of the occupancy date", and the remaining plaintiffs except the plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiffs of non-sale buyers") excluding the plaintiffs, received the registration of ownership transfer from the defendant on each of the corresponding dates stated in the column of "the occupancy date" in the above table.

(c) The apartment complex of this case is***** (1) and (1) through (4) and*** (1), 2) and *** (1, 2), ** (1, 2), ** (1, 2) and **** (1, 4), ***** (1, 2) and ********* (1, 1, 2), *** (2) and 7, 20, such as (1) and (20) of the said (20) and immediately adjacent to the complex, from the date of the sale in lots.

[Ground for Recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 2, 7, Gap evidence 6-1 through 141, Gap evidence 18-2, 3, Eul evidence 1, 8-1 through 71, Eul evidence 10-1 through 71, Eul evidence 15-1 through 32, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the plaintiffs' claim

A. Whether the defendant's omission is liable for tort

1) General legal principles

Where it is evident in light of the empirical rule that if the other party to a transaction in real estate transaction has been notified of certain circumstances, he/she would not have been engaged in such transaction, he/she is obligated to notify the other party of such circumstances in advance in accordance with the principle of good faith.

In addition, providing false information about important circumstances that may affect the decision-making to the other party at the negotiation stage of a contract is in breach of the duty of disclosure under the good faith principle and is liable for tort under the Civil Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da19355, Aug. 20, 2009). In addition, if the duty of disclosure is recognized, tort by omission may be established. Thus, if duty of disclosure is acknowledged under the good faith principle, not only providing false information about important circumstances that may affect the decision-making of the other party, but also failing to comply with the duty of disclosure itself, tort liability may be established by omission (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da8709, Apr. 26, 2012). In addition, where duty of disclosure is violated by omission, this constitutes deception by omission, and the defrauded may have the right to seek cancellation of the contract on grounds of deception and claim compensation for damages arising therefrom, etc. (see, e., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da41654.

2) The parties asserted that the instant graves were 9 or 128 meters away from each Dong of the instant apartment complex, and some graves were in the shape inside the instant apartment complex, and thus giving a serious aversion to the buyers. (2) Before the instant apartment complex was sold, the Defendant did not notify the buyers of the existence of the instant grave, even though the instant graves had already been located adjacent to the site, and if they were to know of the existence of the instant grave, they did not purchase each of the instant apartment lots. This constitutes a tort due to a violation of the duty of disclosure under the good faith principle, and thus, the Defendant was obligated to compensate the Plaintiffs for damages arising therefrom. (3) Since the existence of the instant apartment complex, as well as the price of the instant apartment complex was considerably 10% away from the site in which the Plaintiffs engaged in their daily lives, and the number of the instant graves was considerably close to the site in which the instant apartment was sold, the Defendant did not have been aware of the existence of each of the instant apartment lots in excess of 200% of the nationwide demand for sale.

B) The Defendant’s assertion (1) is that the instant graves are well managed, and thus, are designated as local cultural heritage as well as landscaping and landscape of surrounding forests and fields; one of them is designated as one of them; and the instant graves are not concentrated in a place where the nine period is too minor and only one place; thus, it should be viewed differently from the large-scale common cemetery, which is a suspected facility; and in light of the current situation of Korea where graves are commonly seen in and around our unique culture and residence where burial is focused, it is difficult to view the instant graves as a suspected facility.

(2) The instant graves do not appear in each unit of the instant apartment buildings.

****** Dong,***** Dong,**** Dong,** Dong,** Dong does not seem to have Ami, but****** in the case of consent, some of them should be considered to have opened up, but only in the case of Dong ***, some of them would be left up, and some of them are in a place more than one meter away from convenience facilities or mountain fences located at the center of the apartment complex of this case, and there is no retaining wall around them.

(3) At the time of sale or the current market price of the apartment of this case, most of the apartment of this case were higher than the sale price, and at the time of sale, the apartment of this case was formed with a premium of more than 1 to 200 million won, and the sale price competition rate of the apartment of this case was more than 40 to 50, and the competition rate of other apartment complexes in the Heungdong District to which the apartment of this case belongs was higher than that of the other apartment of this case. Thus, even if the plaintiffs were to know the existence of the grave of this case, they would have tried to purchase the apartment of this case by impairing the market price profits.

3) Whether the duty of disclosure has been breached or not (1)

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or there is no dispute between the parties, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 7, 11, and 12, Gap evidence No. 3-1 through 5, Eul evidence No. 11-5, 9, 10, 14, 18, 19, 20, 26, 27, 35 through 39, Eul evidence No. 14-1, 2, Eul evidence No. 17, Eul evidence Nos. 27-1, 27, and Eul evidence Nos. 27-1, 27, and Eul's on-site inspection, and the results of the fact-finding on the appraiser Jae-in of this court, and the whole purport of the arguments regarding Gap evidence No. 3-5, Eul evidence No. 8-1 through 5, 11-9, 10, 10, 10, 10-7, 10,000.

(B) Since the instant graves are located within a straight line of 25 to 133 meters from each Dong of the instant apartments, the number of buyers who are residents of the instant graves are living together with the instant graves. Among them, the instant graves are in fact located within the instant apartment complex in the form of “bbbb” as follows:

( 다 ) 이 사건 아파트 각 동 및 호수에 따라 이 사건 분묘들의 조망 가부 및 조망의 정도가 다르긴 하나, 일부 세대는 거실이나 주방 혹은 아파트 복도 등에서 육안으로 이 사건 분묘들을 다음 표와 같이 관찰할 수 있다 . ( 라 ) 이 사건 분묘들 중 그림 1 상의 ⑦번 분묘는 이○○ ( 李○○ ) 선생의 〈 그림 1 > 묘로서 2007. 8. 17. 용인시 향토유적 제60호로 지정되어 있다 . ( 마 ) 이 사건 분묘들은 관리가 잘 되어 있어 분묘 주변의 벌초 상황이나 비석 및 석물의 상태가 깨끗하다 .

(2) Determination

In light of the fact that the instant graves do not have more than nine parts of a large-scale common cemetery, and that there is a great value as cultural heritage because some graves are naturally designated, unlike a large-scale common cemetery, it is difficult to recognize that the evidence submitted by the Plaintiffs alone constitutes an hate facility that gives a sense of aversion or fear to the extent that it is impossible for the instant graves to receive, or that the atmosphere is clearly created to the extent that they cannot be able to receive, the instant graves.

However, even if the graves of this case do not constitute hate facilities, it is reasonable to view that they are still facilities close to the residential environment of people in our society. Even if the graves of this case are not large common cemeteries, as seen earlier, and some of them are designated as local cultural properties, it is not different from this, even if they are well-grounded. Furthermore, the graves of this case are located outside the apartment complex of this case, and some graves are located between 25m to 13m and 133m and are located within the apartment complex of this case, and can not be seen as having been able to be seen as having been able to observe or have different extent depending on the location or height of each apartment household, but only some of the households of this case can be seen as having been able to easily purchase and sell the graves of this case, and can be seen as having been able to easily purchase and sell apartments or to have an important basis for the conclusion of the sale contract at the site of apartment houses or sckeland of this case, in light of the fact that the plaintiffs can easily purchase and sell the graves of this case.

B) Whether the duty of disclosure is not fulfilled (1)

The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged by comprehensively considering the overall purport of the pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence 1-1, 2, 4, 1, 8, 9, and 15-1 through 32, and the statement in Eul evidence 19-1 is difficult to reverse the above recognition.

(A) The Defendant did not explain the instant graves to the buyer at the time of concluding each contract for the sale of the apartment of this case with the buyer. (B) There was no mentioning about the instant graves, and there was no sign that can be perceived as the instant graves in terms of the view of the guide book, development plan plan, complex arrangement plan, etc. However, it is only possible to confirm a part of the instant graves out of the instant graves out of the front line of the project site as soon as the site at the time of the instant apartment construction project was stamped from the long distance to the front line of the project site, indicating the project site.

(C) In the column of "contract terms and conditions, etc." such as the above notice of invitation of residents, the contract shall be concluded by ascertaining that the right to sunshine, view, noise, vibration, etc. may be infringed on by the structure of the apartment arrangement and the location of each Dong and lake, and that the right to environment, privacy, etc. may not be raised by that reason."

In the column of "the matters to be considered", it is written that "the time to confirm the site of the pre-contract site", and it is not possible to raise an objection against the civil petition that occurs due to non-verification of the on-site conditions.

(D) On January 2, 2007, the Defendant’s notice of invitation of occupants of the instant apartment, which was submitted on January 2, 2007 at 21st day by the Economic Newspapers, confirmed that the existence of the instant grave could be infringed upon by the right to sunshine, view, noise, vibration, etc. according to the structure of the apartment site placement and the location of each Dong and lake, without any mentioning any mention, and entered into a contract with the Defendant, and thereby, may not raise an objection.

(E) There is no mentioning about the instant grave in the instant apartment supply contract. However, Article 19 (5) provides that "as of the date of conclusion of the contract that the right to sunshine, view, right to privacy, environmental right, etc. may be infringed upon according to the construction and surrounding facilities of the neighboring high-rise building, etc., the installation of apartment buildings, etc., the installation of apartment buildings, structures, and the location of each Dong and lake, etc., in the future, the buyer is recognized as of the date of execution of the contract, and the damages, etc. caused by the future infringement shall not be charged to the defendant." Article 19 (5) provides that "The time of confirmation of the site of the pre-contract and the civil petition caused by confirmation of the conditions of the site shall not be raised later."

(2) Determination

Although the Defendant had a duty of care to notify the Plaintiffs of the existence of the instant grave, it did not notify the Plaintiffs of the existence of the instant grave at the time of entering into the actual sales contract, or did not notify the Plaintiffs of the fact at the time of entering into the sales contract, the Defendant violated the duty of care under the good faith principle by omission.

C) Defendant’s assertion regarding the Defendant’s on-site inspection duty (1)

In the public announcement of invitation of invitation, daily public announcement of apartment supply and supply contract of the company, the person who intends to purchase the apartment of this case has a duty to confirm the site of the apartment of this case before the contract, and the defendant shall not be held liable for damages, etc. caused by the failure to verify the conditions of the site. Thus, the purchaser of this case shall be deemed to have entered into a sales contract after confirming the site where the graves of this case exist and becoming aware of the existence thereof, or even if the site is not confirmed, the sale contract was entered into without performing the duty to confirm the site specified in the supply contract, etc., so the defendant shall not be held liable for

(2) The judgment (A) did not require the other party to notify the fact that the other party had already known as to the fact subject to the notification even if it is not necessary to notify it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da5812, 5829, 5836, Jun. 1, 2007). The apartment site of this case was 600 meters away from the apartment site of this case’s sales office (which was removed after the conclusion of the sales contract) in a straight line from the apartment site of this case’s sales office, and the fact that the other party visited the above apartment site of this case’s sales office at the time of entering into each sales contract on the apartment site of this case’s location was 434m or 51m away from the above apartment site of this case’s sales office or the fact that the other party visited the apartment site of this case’s sales office at the time of entering into the sales contract of this case’s apartment, even if there was no dispute between the parties, Eul evidence No. 21, and Eul’s evidence No. 281.

In light of the fact that it is difficult to confirm the existence of the instant grave solely based on the observation of the land, unless it is deemed to have been aware of the fact in advance, unless it is seen as having been aware of the fact, it is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiffs were aware of the existence of the instant grave at the time of the purchase of the instant apartment complex by the following images: (b) the column of “the terms and conditions of the contract, etc. for the public announcement of invitation of residents” and “matters of attention”, and January 2, 2007.

2. The fact that Article 19(5) and (23) of the Agreement on the Public Notice of Invitation of Residents of the apartment of this case and the Supply of the apartment of this case stipulate each of the obligations to confirm the site of the business site of the buyers of the defendant's assertion every day is as seen earlier.

However, the duty of disclosure and the duty of on-site confirmation borne by the Defendant under the good faith principle that the seller bears are separate obligations that are not related to each other, and therefore, the failure to conduct on-site verification does not affect the duty of disclosure under the good faith principle. The Defendant’s duty of disclosure under the good faith principle that the seller of apartment buildings in this case must be known to the Plaintiffs in order to make proper decision-making. As such, the Defendant’s duty of disclosure under the good faith principle that the supplier is obliged to bear should not be arbitrarily exempted or responsible for the fact subject to notification in bad faith on the ground of on-site non-verification. Therefore, the sales contract with the content that unreasonably exempt the supplier from the duty of disclosure or transferred to the buyer should be null and void only to the extent of the above scope.

However, first of all, the phrase "in the public announcement of invitation of residents" is that the right to sunshine, view, noise, vibration, etc. may be infringed on by the structure of the apartment arrangement and the location of each Dong/unit, and the phrase "it shall be confirmed that the right to sunshine, view, noise, vibration, etc. may not be infringed, and the contract shall be concluded, and an objection shall not be raised as to the damages caused by the structure of the apartment arrangement and the location of each Dong

In this sense, it is difficult to interpret that the purport of Article 19(5) of the above supply contract is that the defendant cannot raise an objection against damages incurred due to the existence of a grave adjacent to the apartment structure or the location of the Dong and lake. The phrase of Article 19(5) of the above supply contract cannot be held liable to the defendant for damages incurred due to the construction of a neighboring high-rise building and its neighboring facilities, apartment placement, structure, and location of each Dong and lake in the future. It is interpreted that the damages incurred due to the alteration of surrounding circumstances in the future are in mind of the occurrence of damages in the future, and it cannot be deemed as included in the damages incurred due to a grave existing in the surrounding apartment area at the time of the sale. The phrase of the above announcement of the announcement of the announcement of the announcement of the announcement of the invitation of the public announcement and the supply contract of the supply contract is the time to confirm the site before the contract site, and there is no objection against the civil petition caused by the non-verification of the site conditions. In particular, it cannot be interpreted that the plaintiffs' interests in this case cannot be directly affected.

Ultimately, solely on the fact that the plaintiffs neglected on-site verification, it cannot be deemed that the defendant's obligation to notify the existence of the grave of this case is exempted, or that the defendant is out of liability for damages caused by the defendant's non-performance of duty of disclosure. Therefore, the defendant'

4) Therefore, the Defendant violated the duty of disclosure by failing to notify the Plaintiffs of the existence of the instant grave despite the existence of the duty of disclosure under the good faith principle. Such a violation constitutes a deception by omission, which constitutes a tort by omission, and the Defendant is obliged to compensate the Plaintiffs of the number of buyers for each loss incurred thereby.

B. Whether tort caused by the Defendant’s active deception constitutes tort

The evidence submitted by the plaintiffs alone is insufficient to recognize that the defendant intentionally, in order to conceal the existence of the grave of this case, he actively induced the plaintiffs by installing a pents at the site of the apartment of this case and obstructing access to the grave of this case, and there is no other evidence to recognize otherwise. Therefore, the above assertion by the plaintiffs by the buyer is without merit.

C. Whether the defendant's buyer's default liability against the plaintiffs is established

Unlike tort liability, which is a general liability between many and unspecified persons, liability for nonperformance arises only between the parties that formed a special combined relationship, which is a contractual relationship. It is reasonable to deem that compensation for damages arising from an illegal act of one of the parties prior to the formation of a contractual relationship should be governed by the legal principles of tort or the legal principles of contract liability. In the negotiation stage of a contract that violates the principle of trust and good faith and does not constitute tort (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da53059, Apr. 11, 2003). If the duty of disclosure under the principle of trust and good faith falls under a contractual obligation, it shall be deemed as an incidental obligation, not a principal obligation. Thus, if the obligation of disclosure is not fulfilled, it is not acknowledged that the defendant did not have an important influence on the conclusion of a contract, such as the right of rescission of a contract, and that the defendant did not have an obligation to notify the other party of the conclusion of a contract as an unlawful act in light of the empirical rule and the duty of disclosure in question.

The liability for nonperformance is limited and does not occur.

D. It is reasonable to view that the damages suffered by the Plaintiffs from entering into a sales contract with the Defendant due to the failure to notify that the existence of the instant grave existed, as the value decline of the instant apartment, taking into account the existence of the said grave (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da48515, Oct. 12, 2006, etc.) and the damages to be compensated should be calculated as at the time of tort. Thus, the damages that the Defendant is liable to compensate for to the Plaintiffs of the buyer are equivalent to the value of the instant apartment, which fell down due to the existence of the instant grave at the time of entering into the sales contract of the instant apartment.

As to this, the defendant argued that since the apartment of this case was sold at a price much less than the general price due to the implementation of the apartment system, etc. at the time of the sale, since the apartment of this case was sold in lots due to the implementation of the apartment system at the time of the sale, the market price at the time of the sale, and the market price at the time of the decline in the real estate price due to the global financial crisis, etc., it cannot be viewed that the damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the violation of the defendant's duty of disclosure are not the difference between the sale price and the market price at the time of the apartment of this case, which was reduced due to the existence of the grave of this case subject to the duty of disclosure, paid by the plaintiffs to the purchaser, but the price at the time of the apartment of this case, as long as the value of the apartment of this case has decreased due to the existence of the above grave, it cannot be said that the sale

E. 1) The premise of the premise of the scope of compensation for damages lies in the market price appraisal of the crime victims (hereinafter referred to as the "market price appraisal of this case"). The defendant claims that the above appraisal is erroneous in the premise or result derived from the premise or result, but the appraisal of evidence is based on the judge's free evaluation, and there is room for a somewhat different conclusion depending on the appraiser or point of view due to some parts dependent on the judgment of the appraiser's discretion in drawing the result of the market price appraisal, it is difficult to view that there is an error to the extent that the appraisal of this case should be excluded from the value of evidence or that the appraiser has derived the appraisal result by abusing or abusing the discretionary power. Thus, according to the results of the fact-finding and the supplementary response of the above appraiser of this case, the above assertion shall not be accepted) and the result of the appraisal of the appraiser of this case at the time of the conclusion of the sale contract

1. At the time of 26.26. The market price of the household subject to appraisal among the apartment buildings of this case (one household per each person, 20 households per each person, hereinafter referred to as "the sample household of this case") and the value decline due to the existence of the graves of this case are as follows:

B) In addition, according to the evidence revealed in the above A, the value decline of the apartment of this case caused by the instant grave is comprised of ① the whole area of the instant grave’s existence per se and ② the part of the instant grave’s differential decline by each household depending on the degree of the present grave’s appearance (if a grave is easily seen, a large number of days, and a large number of days, the decline rate is 0; hereinafter “the decline rate in this part”). The composition ratio is as shown in Table 1.

ਲੋਕ ਵੀ ਹੋ ਸਕਦੇ ਹਨ ( 1다 ) 한편 이 사건 아파트 중 각 동 같은 라인에 있는 구분건물의 면적은 모두 같고, 이 사건 표본 세대와 같은 라인에 있는 모든 세대의 각 시가는 이 사건 표본 세대의 그것과 동일하다 ( 다툼 없는 사실 ) .

2) Damages equivalent to a uniform market price decline due to the existence of a grave per se.

According to the above premise facts, the entire apartment complex of this case, regardless of the existence of the grave of this case, can be seen as uniformly decreasing its value regardless of the view of the grave of this case. Accordingly, the damages suffered by the plaintiffs of this case on January 26, 2007, when there was no grave of this case, are the amount equivalent to 1% of the market value of each apartment of this case (AXC of Table 1).

3) The plaintiffs' assertion (1) that the market price decline amount of each household of the apartment of this case is the same as the result of appraisal on the market price decline amount of the same household among the sample households of this case. Thus, the defendant shall compensate the plaintiffs who purchase other households than the sample households of this case for the amount equivalent to the market price decline appraisal of the sample households of this case.

(2) For the appraisal of this case, both parties have agreed to select the sample households of this case as the market price appraisal amount of each sample household as the amount of damages for each sample household. Thus, it is not permissible to allow the difference of the price of each sample household according to the actual view value and degree without the market price appraisal amount of the same household among the sample households of this case.

B) Determination

(1) First of all, according to the above premise, the sample household of this case suffered losses due to decline in the view value of the sample household of this case, and according to the above premise, the sample household of this case suffered losses due to decline in the view value according to the degree of the view value and view of the grave of this case. As seen earlier, the above damages incurred to the sample household of this case are the amount equivalent to 1% to 8% of the market price appraised value of the sample household of this case under the absence of the grave of this case on January 26, 2007 (AXD of Table 1).

(2) Next, we examine the amount of damages caused by decline in the view value of each of the apartment units of this case, which is not the sample household of this case.

(A) Of the apartment buildings of this case, the selection of the household units among the above apartment units is difficult to minimize the time and expenses that may arise when transferring to the household units, specify the plaintiffs' claims, and it is difficult to determine the degree of damages incurred by the graves of this case as a matter of course, and it is difficult to see that the parties have agreed to recognize the amount of damages as above, or that there was any agreement between the parties to recognize the amount of damages as a whole due to the selection of the sample units of this case. Since it is difficult to find that the damages incurred by the household units of this case were equal to that of the above sample units of this case 8, the court cannot find that the damages incurred by the above sample units of this case were equal to that of the above sample units of this case by considering the following facts: (b) there is no evidence to find that the damages incurred by the above sample units of this case were identical to the appraisal of the market price of the sample units of this case, and there is no difference between the parties to this case and the above appraisal of the present case 171.

4) As to the defendant's assertion on the prospect benefit

The defendant, in principle, has a special value in view of the outside from the place, and only if it is deemed that the enjoyment of such benefit of view is important to the extent that it can be approved as an independent benefit by social norms, shall be legally protected. In the case of the apartment of this case, the defendant did not advertise the benefit of view as the object of such special legal protection, and there is no possibility to recognize such protection, and therefore, the market decline based on the father and degree of view of the graves of this case shall not be deemed damage.

Although a dispute to the purport of the defendant's assertion, if the benefit of the view, as alleged by the defendant, has a special value in view of the outside, legal protection is granted to the specific place, and the benefit of the view itself has a special interest. However, as in the case of this case, the damage incurred by the existence of a grave not friendly with a residential facility at a place less than a hundred and twenty meters away from the apartment, not the infringement of the benefit of the view having a special value, but the infringement of the benefit of the living, such as inconvenience, inconvenience, fear, and aversion, which is all different from the benefit of the defendant's assertion, and even if such benefit of the view is not recognized, it is naturally different from the benefit of the view of the defendant's assertion. Thus, the infringement of the benefit of the living, such as a non-preferred facility, such as a grave, can be done from the residential space, and thus, the defendant's assertion on the different premise is without reason to further examine it.

Therefore, the damages suffered by the above plaintiffs due to the defendant's violation of the duty of disclosure under the good faith principle that should notify the plaintiffs of the existence of the graves of this case shall be the sum of ① the total market price of the apartment complex per se due to the existence of the graves of this case (the amount equivalent to 1% of the market price of the apartment complex of this case in the absence of the graves of this case as of January 26, 2007) and ② the market price below the market price of the graves of this case in each household, which is the market price under the degree of the view and view of the graves of this case, under the condition that no graves of this case exist as of January 26, 207, the amount equivalent to 1% to 8% of the market price of the apartment complex of this case in the case of the sample household of this case, and the amount of appraisal according to the market price appraisal of this case in the case of other households.)

(f) Limitation on liability

However, the above facts and the following circumstances revealed through the public announcement or supply contract of the apartment of this case, namely, the Plaintiffs were obligated to confirm the site by the public announcement or supply contract of the apartment of this case, and there were many graves including the graves in the vicinity of the similar complex including the apartment of this case at the time of the above sale contract, and since the apartment of this case was awarded by the bid for the bonds, the apartment of this case was sold in lots at the price significantly lower than the market price or sale price of the neighboring apartment of this case at the time, and the apartment of this case was formed at the premium of KRW 10 million or KRW 20 million, and the sale price paid by the Plaintiffs to purchase the apartment of this case by the buyer was lower than the market price after December 2, 2010 due to the financial crisis as well as the market price at around January 207.

G. Ultimately, the defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay by the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act until February 15, 2013, and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, which are stipulated in the attached Table of Damage Statement, as damages for tort due to the violation of duty of disclosure as above, and each corresponding amount in the attached Table of Damage Statement, and each corresponding amount in which the above plaintiffs seek after the corresponding date of each corresponding day in the "date of occupancy" in the above table, which is reasonable for the defendant to dispute about the existence and scope of each obligation.

3. Determination on the plaintiffs' claims by non-sellers

The plaintiffs of non-sellers asserted that the defendant did not fulfill their duty of disclosure under the good faith principle, or that the plaintiffs of non-sellers transferred the status of the buyer according to the contract of succession to the rights and obligations of each apartment building of this case from the buyers and completed the registration of transfer of ownership by the defendant. Thus, the defendant asserts that not only the plaintiffs of the buyer but also the plaintiffs of non-sellers are liable for damages due to tort or non-performance of duty of disclosure under the good faith principle.

On the other hand, the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs is sufficient to recognize the fact that the above plaintiffs completed the registration of ownership transfer on each corresponding apartment building of this case, and it is not sufficient to recognize that they concluded each sales contract directly with the defendant as the buyer, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

In addition, a person entitled to claim damages due to a tort is limited to the victim who has suffered direct damages or the purchaser of the right to claim damages from the purchaser, and the defendant, a seller, bears the duty of disclosure under the principle of good faith only for the purchaser who intends to directly sell contracts. Thus, the person entitled to claim damages due to the tort of this case against the defendant is limited to the purchaser who has incurred damages by failing to fulfill the duty of disclosure under the principle of good faith. Even if the plaintiffs transferred the status of the purchaser from the buyer, the status that is transferred due to the transfer of the buyer from the buyer is "party to the contract after the conclusion of the contract," and it is not naturally transferred to the buyer's right to claim damages due to the tort due to the violation of the duty of disclosure under the principle of good faith, which is a claim arising at the negotiation stage, and there

Finally, as seen earlier, the duty of disclosure under the good faith principle takes place at the stage of negotiations prior to the conclusion of a contract, and the liability for the breach of such duty is not a contractual liability, and thus, the obligation is deemed a tort, and even if the plaintiffs were transferred the status of the buyer from the buyer, it is merely a claim premised on the establishment of a sales contract, and thus, it is not likely to transfer a claim for damages arising from a tort other than a contract claim, and there is no evidence to deem that the defendant bears the responsibility for damages arising from any contractual relationship to the plaintiffs.

Therefore, the claim of this case by the non-party purchaser is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims of this case are accepted within the scope of the above recognition with reasons, and the remaining claims and the claims of the plaintiffs of non-sellers are dismissed as they are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.