1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The grounds for this judgment citing the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows, and thus, they are cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for partial revision as follows.

(However, the part related to consolation money among the plaintiff's primary claim and ancillary claim excluded from the object of this Court's trial is excluded). 3 3 - 6 - as follows.

The Plaintiff paid in six installments the sales price of this case to the account in the name of F Co., Ltd. designated by the Defendant pursuant to the instant sales contract (the down payment of KRW 202,755,500 on the contract date, September 15, 2015; January 4, 2016; March 15, 2016; and June 15, 2016; and the remainder of KRW 92,845,500 on June 15, 2016; and the remainder of KRW 439,640,00 on the designation date of salesroom occupants) on January 2, 2017.

6. The “(including each number)” of paragraph 1 to 5 shall be added to the following:

The plaintiff's assertion of 8th parallel 8th parallel 8th parallel 8th parallel 8th parallel 8th parallel 8th parallel 8th parallel 8th parallel 8th parallel 8th parallel 8th parallel 8th parallel 8th parallel 8th parallel 8th parallel 8th parallel 17-18 "the plaintiff is responsible for compensating 230,000 won for property damage (i.e., 200,000 won for property damage)." The plaintiff is responsible for compensating 20,000 won for property damage suffered by the plaintiff." The degree of exaggeration in relation to the issue of whether the plaintiff's sale of the integrated met with the point of view to general commercial practices or the good faith principle, and the contents of the advertisement are also about whether the sale of the specific store is in accordance with the essential consideration of the conclusion of the sale contract."

Since it cannot be a lawsuit, it is difficult to view that the advertisement of sale in this case may undermine the fair trade order.

Therefore, the sales advertisement of this case does not correspond to false or exaggerated advertisements under the Advertising Act, but constitutes tort under the Civil Act.