(영문) 인천지방법원 2015.11.25 2013가합12804

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 인천지방법원 2015.11.25 2013가합12804

분양대금반환 등

Text

1. The Defendant: (a) from January 19, 2010 to January 19, 2010 to the Plaintiff A; and (b) from January 23, 219,000 to the Plaintiff B.

Reasons

1. Indication of claim;

A. The Defendant is the executor and the contractor of the business that newly constructs and sells D apartment units (hereinafter “instant apartment”), which are multi-family housing with eight 585 households, Dong-dong on the ground of 29,048.805 square meters of blocks in the free economic zone of Incheon Metropolitan City.

B. On January 19, 2010, Plaintiff A entered into a sales contract with the Defendant for the purchase price of KRW 328,60,000, and Plaintiff B with KRW 1503, Feb. 11, 2010 to sell each of the instant apartment units of KRW 331,70,000, respectively (hereinafter “each of the instant sales contracts”).

C. In the process of concluding each of the instant apartment sales contracts, the Defendant advertised the third-in landing bridge and the second airport railway related to the occupancy conditions of the instant apartment as follows:

1) At the time of the advertisement by specifying the scheduled time for the opening of the third landing bridge as the year 2014 in a part of the advertisement for sale in lots of the third landing bridge, there was no specific plan to specify the scheduled time for the opening of the third landing bridge as the year 2014. However, in 2014, there was only the Incheon City announcement to the effect that the opening of the third landing bridge would be the goal of the opening prior to the holding of the Incheon ASEAN games. (ii) The second airport railway route was indicated as “the second airport railway (Scheduled)” or “the second airport railroad (Planning)” by indicating the anticipated route of the second airport railway in the area of the advertisement complex, and in particular, it was difficult to realize the station area premium in the vicinity of the apartment complex of this case, but it was difficult to realize it within the future for a considerable period.

The defendant's above advertising constitutes false or exaggerated advertising under Article 3 (1) of the Act on Fair Labeling and Advertising, and the plaintiffs entered into each of the instant sales contracts at a price higher than the reasonable sales price with the defendant due to such false or exaggerated advertising.

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 2015.10.22 2013가합10129

-인천지방법원 2015.11.26 2013가합6311

-인천지방법원 2015.8.25.선고 2012가합21818 판결

-대법원 2015. 5. 28. 선고 2014다24327,24334,24341,24358,24365,24372 판결

-서울고등법원 2017.09.22 2016나2041560