1. The judgment of the first instance court, including the modification of a claim in the trial proceedings, shall be modified as follows:

The defendants are the defendants.

1. The reasoning of this court’s explanation here is as follows: (a) the “this court” of the 8th, 4, and 5 of the judgment of the first instance is used as “the first instance court”; and (b) the relevant part of the judgment of the first instance is the same as the relevant part of the judgment of the first instance, and thus, (c) the same shall be cited in accordance

2. Determination on the claim for damages due to nonperformance

A. (1) At the time of entering into the instant sales contract with the Plaintiff, the Defendants promised to establish P buildings, V department stores, ice-free workshops, and waterside parks (hereinafter “instant facilities”) through sales advertisements, etc.

This constitutes an external material of the apartment of this case and incorporated into the contents of the sales contract of this case, the defendants are obligated to install the facilities of this case so that they can be used by the plaintiff.

Nevertheless, since the Defendants did not perform the above obligations, they should compensate for the damages suffered by the Plaintiff.

(2) When entering into the instant sales contract, the Defendants advertised that the instant heading room is protected as a pentum, which was incorporated into the sales contract of this case.

However, around the brush of this case, machinery facilities for poppy, steel pents, and ventilation have been installed, and thus the view and privacy has been infringed.

The defendants shall compensate for damages suffered by the plaintiff since they did not fulfill the plaintiff's right to view and the duty to protect privacy.

B. (1) The offer of the relevant legal doctrine on the instant facilities is a conclusive declaration of intent to establish a certain contract in combination with the consent of the other party corresponding thereto. On the other hand, the invitation to subscribe is not a declaration of intent that constitutes an agreement different from that of the other party. Therefore, even if the inducer expresses his/her intent in response thereto, the contract is not concluded.