2010Gahap1713 Sales Price

Jung-○ et al. and 16 others

1. ○ Development of a stock company;

2. △△ Construction

June 8, 2011

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

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

The defendants shall jointly and severally do so to the plaintiffs each amount stated in the claim column of the attached Table (* omitted).

From September 9, 2009 to the rendering of a judgment in this case, 5% per annum and from the next day to the full payment day.

For up to twenty percent per annum, each share of 20 percent shall be paid.

1. Basic facts

A. The parties to the contract and the conclusion of the contract for sale in lots 1) Defendant ○○ Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant ○○○ Development”) are the executor and seller (seller) of the Suwon-dong apartment unit D (hereinafter “the apartment unit of this case”) located in the Suwon-dong unit, Suwon-dong unit, and Defendant △△△ Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant △△ Construction”) is the buyer and seller of the apartment unit of this case.

2) The Plaintiffs, on the date indicated in the attached Table (attached Form* omitted), received apartment units listed in the unit column - Dong from Defendant ○○ Development on the date indicated in the contract date of the attached Table (attached Form 1), from the unit sale price entered in the unit sale price column of the same Table, and paid each purchase price.

B. Around October 207, the Defendants established a sales office within the model house of the apartment of this case, kept and distributed a car-sloping, supply guide, etc. of the apartment of this case, and posted a view in the sales office. In addition, the Defendant △△ Construction Internet homepage posted a sales advertisement with the same contents as the car-sloping and supply guide.

2) On the above car-sloping, supply guide, and lighting guide, and Internet homepage, the road that enters the apartment of this case was marked as a "road of 20 meters ("the west side of the apartment of this case")" on the west side of the apartment, and "the road of this case was marked as a road of 10 meters on the north," respectively (hereinafter "the advertisement of this case, including the above car-sloping, supply guide and lighting guide, and Internet homepage).

C. On the other hand, as of May 1, 2006, the Seocho-west road of the apartment of this case was designated as the planned urban planning zone of 1-24 lines, among the persons on May 1, 2006, pursuant to the determination of the Suwon City Urban Planning Facility. 2) However, on February 26, 2007, Defendant ○○ Development obtained approval for the housing construction project from the Suwon City on the condition that the four roads near the apartment of this case, including the Seo Seo-west road of this case, should be constructed a road of 10 meters wide and gratuitously reverted to water supply.

D. When the defendants' correction of the advertising advertisement of the apartment of this case and warning1 of the Fair Trade Commission were raised about the width of the side road of the apartment of this case, from May 1, 2008, the defendants stated on the side road of the apartment of this case as "20 meters road was corrected and advertised as urban planning scheduled" in the part of the apartment of this case among the apartment of this case's apartment of this case's apartment of this case's apartment of this case's apartment of this case's apartment of this case's apartment of this case's apartment of this case's apartment of this case's apartment of this case's apartment of this case's apartment of this case's apartment of this case's apartment of this case's apartment of this case's apartment of this case's apartment of this case's apartment of this case's apartment of this case's apartment of this case's apartment of this case's apartment of this case's apartment of this case's apartment of this case's apartment of this case's apartment of this case's case's apartment of this case's apartment of 20 meters.

E. The current status of the Seowest road of the apartment of this case

As of January 28, 2010, the filing date of the complaint by the plaintiffs, the expansion of the road width of the Seocho-gu apartment of this case is 10 meters.

【Uncontentious facts, Gap's entries in Gap's evidence 1 through 7 (including branch numbers, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

The defendants advertised that the 10m wide road of the apartment of this case was opened with knowledge that the 10m wide, so it constitutes a tort by deception. The defendants believe that the 20m wide road of the apartment of this case is established jointly and severally, and they are liable to compensate the plaintiffs who concluded the sales contract of the apartment of this case for damages as much as the decrease in the value of each apartment unit of the plaintiffs due to the above false advertisements ( = the value of the apartment unit of the plaintiffs in case where the above 20m wide road is constructed at 20m wide) against the plaintiffs who concluded the sales contract of the apartment of this case.

B. The defendants' assertion 1) The advertisement of this case is within the scope of sufficient time in light of the general commercial transaction practices and the good faith principle, so there is a lack of deception.

2) Of the plaintiffs, the plaintiff Geum-○ concluded a sales contract on June 1, 2008, which was after the defendant ○○ Development corrected the explanation on the side road of the apartment of this case. Thus, since the sales contract for the apartment of this case was concluded on June 1, 2008, the contract was concluded with the belief that the side road of the apartment of this case is set up at 20 meters wide.

shall not be subject to an appeal.

3) Even if the Defendants’ liability for damages is recognized, the width of the road is limited to one element of the contract for sale in lots, and the Plaintiffs are negligent in not verifying the scope of the side road of the apartment complex of this case by asking the competent authority about the width thereof. Thus, the Defendants’ liability for damages should be mitigated.

3. Determination

A. Although a person who sells a large-scale apartment, etc. has placed an exaggerated advertisement on the location conditions of apartment, surrounding natural environment, traffic environment, facilities, etc. through the sale advertisement, if such contents are not included in the sale contract, it is merely merely an "inducing to subscribe" to the extent that it can be recognized as reasonable in light of commercial practices or good faith principles, and it cannot be viewed as the contents of the sale contract.

Meanwhile, in the event that an apartment unit is sold in advance by specifying only the size and shape of the apartment unit and specifying only the size of the site without the completion of the apartment unit, the seller of the apartment unit can uniformly know in advance the location of the apartment unit through the advertisement for sale in lots the surrounding conditions and special convenience facilities, parking lots and area of the public facilities, parking lots and gardens, etc., and other major facilities based on the number of common facilities and the amount of the apartment unit and its payment conditions based thereon, and the purchaser of the apartment unit can make an application for the sale in lots based on the above contents, and then the purchaser will enter into the procedure of the sale in lots based on the standardized apartment unit prepared by him in advance with the winner. In this case, it is reasonable to view that the purchaser of the apartment unit is equipped with facilities, environment, quality, etc. same as those set forth in the advertisement for sale in lots, and that the purchaser of the apartment unit is believed to have concluded the sale in lots with the purchaser's guarantee, on the other hand, even if it is not included in the sale in the sale contract.

In the end, the issue of whether the contents presented through the advertisement for sale have become the contents of the sale contract even though they were not specified in the sale contract should be determined by considering the fact that the sale contract is permitted to be exaggerated advertisement or publicity to a certain extent in commercial transactions. It should be determined by taking into account the following factors: whether it is related to the essential contents of the sale contract such as the structure, facilities, and functions of apartment buildings; whether it is inappropriate to indicate in the individual sale contract matters such as the structure, size, materials, arrangement, etc. of the apartment public facilities; whether it is important to consider in the conclusion of the sale contract; and whether it is important matters to be considered by buyers

2) On the other hand, in relation to the deception of exaggerated advertising, if specific facts about important matters of trading in the advertisement of goods are falsely notified in a manner to the extent that they can be criticized in light of the duty of good faith, it constitutes deception. However, in the advertisement, accompanied by a somewhat exaggeration, falsity, or excessive subjective prediction, it would lack of deception as long as it may be acceptable in light of the general commercial practice and the good faith principle (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Da55601, May 29, 2001; 200Da27510, Apr. 10, 2001).

B. In full view of the purport of the pleading evidence No. 1-1-1-18 as to whether the width of the front road of the apartment of this case was the contents of the sales contract of this case, the apartment of this case can be acknowledged that there is no entry as to the width of the front road of the apartment of this case by the plaintiffs and the defendants. In addition, the width of the front road of the apartment of this case is not related to the essential contents of the sales contract of this case such as the structure, facilities, functions, etc. of the apartment of this case. Further, it is difficult to view that the front road of this case is an apartment of this case that only the residents of the apartment of this case can use the apartment of this case, and that the buyer of this case did not have an important role in entering into the sales contract of this case as to the passage of the apartment of this case, the contents of the apartment of this case's front road of this case as to the passage of the apartment of this case can not be seen as the contents of the sales contract of this case.

C. According to the above facts and each of the above evidence, Defendant 0, 1, 207, when it obtained approval for the housing construction project of the apartment of this case from the Suwon City on February 26, 2007 on the four roads near the apartment of this case including the Seowest Road of this case, it is recognized that the apartment of this case is indicated as 20 meters road". However, as of May 1, 2006, the apartment of this case is marked as 1 - 24m of the urban planning facility of this case among the above 20m of the apartment of this case, the apartment of this case was marked as 9m of the city planning facility of this case on May 1, 2006 as 1- 9m of the city planning facility of this case, and as from May 1, 2008, the defendants were marked as 20m of the apartment of this case on the road of this case as 9m of the city planning facility of this case on the 20m of apartment of this case.

3) Therefore, as recognized in the above Paragraph 1, even if there was a false statement about the width of the side road of the apartment of this case as to the sale advertisement of this case, there were circumstances that can be the same as the facts acknowledged in the above Paragraph 2 in light of the circumstance that the Defendants stated the size of the side road of the apartment of this case 20 meters in the sale advertisement of this case. In addition, upon the occurrence of a problem as to the width of the side road of the apartment of this case, the Defendants corrected this part as above, and advertised the sale of this case. ② There was a false statement about the side road of the four roads surrounding the apartment of this case. ③ The Defendants did not appear to have marked the "20 meters road" only on the side road of the apartment of this case to raise the sale price or promote the sale of the apartment of this case, ④ The apartment of this case's urban planning facility decision becomes effective at the time of May 1, 206, and the possibility of the Defendants' construction of this case's apartment of this case can also be criticized in light of the duty of good faith.

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, the sales advertisement of this case cannot be deemed to have become the contents of the sales contract, and there is a lack of deception. Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim against the defendants who seek damages on the premise that the sales advertisement of this case is a deception is without merit without further determination.

4. Conclusion

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

The presiding judge shall make a statement of judges

Judges Song-young

Judges Doo-leap