beta
Text
1. The defendant has against the plaintiffs each money as stated in the separate sheet 1 and the separate sheet 2 "amount of personal use" and each of the above money.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The defendant is an executor who sold the apartment on the ground of Kimpo-si Kimpo-si's ground CE apartment (hereinafter "the apartment of this case"). The defendant is the contractor of the apartment of this case, and the defendant's intervenor is the defendant's intervenor, and the plaintiffs were either sold the apartment of this case from the defendant or taken over the status of the buyer from the initial buyer.
B. On December 29, 2009, the Defendant issued the first announcement of the sale in lots. From January 201 to May 201, 201, the Defendant concluded the first announcement of the sale in lots with the purchaser or the purchaser of the status of the purchaser (hereinafter “the first sale in lots”) listed in the separate sheet No. 1 among the Plaintiffs from January 201 to May 201. 2) The Defendant made the second announcement of the second sale in lots on May 27, 201, and from September 201 to April 2012, the Defendant concluded the sale in lots with the purchaser or the purchaser of the status of the purchaser (hereinafter “the second sale in lots”) respectively, and the first sale in lots and the second sale in lots all together with the second sale in lots.
2. Summary of the plaintiffs' claims
A. At the time of advertising the instant apartment at the time of sale and each of the instant sales contracts, the Defendant did not know the fact that the same structure and size of the apartment complex as the instant apartment complex are to be supplied to an adjacent location, and did not notify that the resource recovery center (e.g., incineration station) and charnel should be installed and operated. Although the progress of the instant apartment complex was in a state where the progress of the project was inappropriate on the light of light rail and the 2nd cycle, the said project is normally underway, and the Defendant deceivings the Plaintiffs by making a false exaggerated advertisement that he could benefit from the time of occupancy on April 2013. As such, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiffs for damages under Article 10(1) of the Act on Fair Labeling and Advertising and Articles 750 and 751 of the Civil Act.
(hereinafter referred to as “first claim”). (b)