In a case where a construction executor of an apartment building project parcels out with a discount on the purchase price of a low-rise apartment to resolve the low-quality sales price, the case dismissing a claim for damages equivalent to the market price decline of an apartment occupant of a high-rise apartment on the ground that the above special sale cannot be deemed reasonable and fair in light of all the circumstances.

In a case where a construction executor of an apartment building project parcels out with a discount on the purchase price of a low-rise apartment to resolve the low-quality sales price, the case dismissing a claim for damages equivalent to the market price decline of the occupants of high-rise apartment units on the ground that the above special sale cannot be deemed reasonable and equitable in light of all the circumstances.

Articles 390 and 750 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1 and 304 others (Attorney Yoon Young-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Public Official Pension Corporation

October 29, 2008

1. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendant are all dismissed.

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

The defendant shall pay to each of the plaintiffs 30,000 won with 20% interest per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

The following facts may be acknowledged as either in dispute between the parties, or in each entry in the evidence Nos. 1 through 5, by integrating the purport of the whole pleadings:

A. The same applies to the sales performance (8.4% of the sales rate) that was extended to the general public on November 2005, such as the first sale of the apartment units on the ground of △△ apartment (a total of 882 households composed of 33 square, 25 square, 23 square, and 23 square; hereinafter “the apartment units in this case”) that was constructed on the ground of the Man-dong, Busan. Around December 2003, the sales performance of the apartment units was low, such as the first sale of the apartment units on the apartment units to the public officials of the homeless-gu, but only 74 households were sold (the sale rate was 8.4%). However, the sales performance (the sale rate was 13.5%) was below the total of 119 households.

B. When the scheduled date of occupancy of the apartment of this case (round March 1, 2006) was imminent, from around December 1, 2005, Defendant Corporation concluded the so-called special parcelling-out contract (hereinafter “the first special parcelling-out contract”) with the buyer by having the buyer select the remainder payment at no interest rate for 2 years. From around December 1, 2005, Defendant Corporation refunded the amount equivalent to the parcelling-out price discounted under the special parcelling-out condition to the buyer.

C. After that, around February 25, 2007, when one year has elapsed since the occupancy date of the apartment of this case, the sale rate of the apartment of this case was 95% or more (hereinafter “high-rise apartment of this case”) but the sale rate of the apartment of this case was 19% or less. However, from March 1, 2007, the apartment of this case was less than 4 floors (hereinafter “low-rise apartment of this case”) and from March 1, 2007, the defendant Corporation entered into a special sale agreement with several buyers to select “the method of additional payment of the purchase price at a rate of 6-10% or less for each floor when paying the purchase price to the low-rise apartment of this case.” At the same time, the sale price of the apartment of this case was at a discount of 70 million won or less for each apartment of this case, and the sale price was at the same time at the same time at the same time at the same time at the same time at the same time at the same time at the same time at the same time at the same time at the same time at the same time at the same time by the second to the second to the low-story.

D. All of the plaintiffs move into a high-rise apartment (all of the plaintiffs move into a high-rise apartment according to the first special sale, and some of the plaintiffs move into a high-rise apartment due to the first special sale, and they enter into a sales contract on the apartment of a high-rise apartment according to the first special sale and enter into a sales contract on the apartment of a high-rise apartment according to the first special sale, or enter into a sales contract on the apartment of a high-rise apartment, such as the husband and wife, or the buyer who entered into a sales contract on the apartment of a high-rise apartment according to the first special sale, and some of the others move into the apartment of a high-rise apartment upon the first sale.

2. The plaintiffs' assertion

A. Defendant Corporation (1) committed the second special sale in violation of the agreement with the pre-existing buyers at the time of the first sale or at the time of the first special sale of the apartment in this case, with the intention of not conducting any additional special sale thereafter, and (2) granted the second special sale in violation of the agreement, and refund of the amount equivalent to KRW 700 to KRW 10 million, which is the only discounted sale price for the pre-existing buyers on the apartment in the low-rises without considering reasonable grounds or equity among the buyers. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs suffered damages, such as a decline in the market price of the apartment in the high-rises apartment in the apartment in this case, or a low trading of the apartment in the high-rises apartment in this case. Accordingly, Defendant Corporation has a duty to compensate the Plaintiffs for damages (which is equivalent to KRW 10 million, the market price of the apartment in the low-rises apartment in each apartment in which the plaintiffs moved in).

B. Meanwhile, in lieu of paying damages equivalent to the market price decline in cash to the council of occupants' representatives of the apartment of this case that occurred to the plaintiffs, including the plaintiffs, the defendant Corporation promised to replace or extend the facilities of the apartment of this case, such as high-quality elevation of the entrance of the entrance of each apartment of this case, installation of an outer wall, replacement of a stairs lighting, replacement of a stairs lighting, roof and floor replacement, and creation of a fireworks after the removal of sports facilities, but fails to comply with the above promise until now. Thus, the defendant Corporation is liable to pay damages equivalent to the market price decline suffered by the plaintiffs in cash due to the violation of the above promise. Accordingly, the defendant Corporation first seeks payment of some of them.

3. Determination

(4) As to the plaintiffs' assertion that the act of selling the apartment units at a low price by Defendant 2 was conducted on the second apartment units or under the conditions of the sale of the apartment units at a low price below the second apartment units, it is difficult to recognize that the sale price of the apartment units at a low price below the second apartment units or that the sale price of the apartment units at a low price below the second apartment units was calculated on the second apartment units or that the sale price of the apartment units at a low price below the second apartment units was calculated on the second apartment units or that the sale price of the apartment units at a low price below the second apartment units was not calculated on the second apartment units or that the sale price of the apartment units at a low price below the second apartment units was not calculated on the second apartment units or that the sale price of the apartment units at a low price below the second apartment units was not calculated on the second apartment units or that the sale price of the apartment units at a low price below the second apartment units was not calculated on the first time after the first sale of the apartment units at a low price below the second apartment units.

B. Next, as to the plaintiffs' assertion that the defendant Corporation promised to replace or extend the apartment facilities of this case instead of paying damages equivalent to the market price decline that the plaintiffs suffered by the defendant Corporation in cash, comprehensively taking account of the whole purport of the arguments in the statement of evidence Nos. 4 and 5 as to the execution of the second special sale of the apartment complex of this case, the council of occupants' representatives of the apartment of this case and the defendant Corporation requested the defendant Corporation to install additional facilities for the apartment of this case as a resolution of the dispute. The defendant Corporation inside the council of occupants' representatives requested the defendant Corporation to establish additional facilities for the apartment of this case as a resolution of the dispute. According to the evidence No. 4, some of the requirements of the council of occupants' representatives' representatives (such as the issue of the construction of the apartment name, the problem of the construction of the building of the apartment of this case, the water flow into the warehouse at the time of water cleaning) were positively examined, but the above fact and the result of the agreement with the plaintiff 124 are not sufficient to acknowledge that the damage of this case's apartment house of this case was replaced or its market price.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Park Sung-chul (Presiding Judge)