1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Defendants shall be revoked, and the Plaintiffs’ claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be revoked.

Basic Facts

The reasoning for this part of this Court is that the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that for the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance.

The plaintiffs' assertion

A. The Defendants presented the data that the salesroom occupants of a large enterprise, etc. were determined in the course of selling the instant commercial building, etc., and made an advertisement to the effect that they guarantee lease and fixed profit rate (average 5% or at least 7.5%) through the rental care service, which is the “after the prior lease,” thereby deceiving the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs concluded the instant sales contract beyond the said Defendants’ deception.

B. In light of the Defendants’ advertising, the contents of five documents that the Defendants signed and sealed at the time of entering into the instant sales contract, and the operational situation of the leased air services shop at the time of entering into the instant sales contract, the Plaintiffs recognized that the leased air services provided by the Defendants are simply mediating and connecting a lessee and a lessor, and furthermore, they provided a management system as to overall lease agreements, such as lease and lease operation. Furthermore, there was no explanation from the Defendants to the Plaintiffs that the real estate security trust agreement should be concluded for the provision of the leased air services at the time of entering into the instant sales contract, and the Defendants concluded the instant sales contract without knowing the fact that the contract was concluded for the provision of the leased air services, which constitutes an error in the important contents of the contract,

This constitutes a mistake provided or induced by the Defendants.

C. Therefore, the Plaintiffs cancel the instant sales contract on the grounds of the Defendants’ deception or mistake and seek the refund of the amount equivalent to the down payment and the intermediate payment already paid to the Defendants.

Judgment

A. The existence of deception is stated in this part in this Court.