beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 45,906,752 for Plaintiff A; (b) KRW 29,040,899 for Plaintiff B; and (c) KRW 16,289,861 for Plaintiff C and D, respectively.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiffs are those who purchase the interior set of the Yeonsu-gu Incheon E commercial building (hereinafter “instant commercial building”), and the Defendant is the company that sold the instant commercial building.
B. Plaintiff A acquired on August 19, 2005 the status of the buyer of the instant shopping mall G-101 (38.504 square meters in exclusive use area, 47.075 square meters in public use area), which was sold in lots by F in KRW 522,030,000, and paid in full.
Plaintiff
B acquired the status of a buyer of the instant shopping mall G-95 (exclusive use area of 38.276 square meters, public use area of 46.796 square meters), which G acquired in April 6, 2006, and paid in full the sales price.
Plaintiff
D The status of the buyer of the instant shopping mall G-90 square meters (exclusive use area of 38.542 square meters, 47.122 square meters) that I purchased in 522,50,000 won, was taken over on August 19, 2005, and the Plaintiff C acquired 1/2 shares out of the above sales right from Plaintiff D on February 6, 2009, and Plaintiff D and C paid in full the sales price.
C. The materials provided by the Defendant at the time of selling the instant commercial building were all the exclusive use area, the number and location of each separate store, and the sales Kale, indicating the drawings of the 1st floor of the instant commercial building G, and the said drawings were the annexed Form 1, and the yellow part among them is the same as the food crate of this case.
Although the above drawings had a door displayed on other branches, such as the tecrypt store, there was no separate entrance sign for the Pdcot area. D.
Since then, the Defendant completed and delivered to the Plaintiffs, there were three glass walls and glass doors, but only one wall and door was installed in the line connecting each point of the No. 1 and No. 2, and the entrance in favor of the remainder of the glass wall was not the line connecting each point of the No. 10, No. 11 of the Map No. 2 and the one connecting each point of No. 16, No. 17 of the Map No. 16, and No. 17 of the Map No. 2 without any prior explanation or notification to the Plaintiffs.