Plaintiff

Newan Construction Industry Co., Ltd.

January 22, 2013

Seoul Western District Court Decision 2012Da22344 Decided August 14, 2012

1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

A. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff 10,175,053 won with 5% interest per annum from June 2, 2012 to February 8, 2013, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

B. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

2. One-third of the total litigation cost shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

3. The part on which a provisional execution is not declared by the first instance among the items (a) of paragraph (1) may be provisionally executed;

1. Purport of claim

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 53,494,930 won with 20% interest per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment.

2. Purport of appeal

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed.

3. Purport of incidental appeal;

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff falling under one of the following subparagraphs shall be revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 46,148,776 won with 5% interest per annum from June 2, 2012 to August 14, 2012, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. Status of the parties

The defendant was a person who newly built up 13 apartment units (the name of the building omitted) on the ground of 30,062m2 on the 44m2 and 44m2,000,062, and sold them in lots, and the plaintiff was a person who purchased the apartment units of this case (the name of the building omitted).

B. Construction circumstances of the apartment of this case

1) On December 2004, the Defendant filed an application for approval of the housing construction project plan in order to newly construct ten apartment units of this case with the Mayor of Pakistan-ju around the end of December. 2004.

2) In relation to the approval of the said housing construction project plan, the Pakistan-ju City consulted on the matters concerning the school site in accordance with the Act on Special Cases concerning the Securing, etc. of School Sites (hereinafter “Special Cases Concerning School Sites”) with the Office of Education of Pakistan. On January 2005, the Office of Education of Pakistan made it necessary to procure school sites for the construction of an elementary school in order to approve the said housing construction project plan, since the existing elementary school, an elementary school, a private school, and △△, an elementary school, a private school, and △△, a private school, cannot be admitted more than to a private school, and the existing elementary school, a private school, a private school, a private school, was determined as a school site that adjoins the south side of the instant apartment site as a result of consultation between the Defendant and the Pakistan-ju Office of Education on the specific area and location of the relevant apartment site.

3) However, around October 25, 2005, the Pakistan Office of Education determined that the elementary school students who will reside in the apartment of this case can be accommodated in the existing elementary school, △△ Elementary School, which is an elementary school, due to changes in circumstances, such as changes in the current status of development and occupancy of neighboring apartment houses, and low birth rate social phenomenon, and notified the defendant and the head of Pakistan Mayor

4) On March 21, 2006, when approving the construction project plan for new apartment units of this case to the Defendant on March 21, 2006, the project owner stated that elementary school students living in the apartment units of this case are admitted to △△ Elementary School in accordance with the changed opinion of the Office of Education in the field of Pakistan, and specified the location of the △△ Elementary School (e.g., distance of school, method of school attendance and the required time of school attendance), and set the conditions for approving the improvement of the course from the apartment units of this case to the △△

5) On November 7, 2006, the Defendant filed an application for the alteration of the housing construction project plan with the content of newly constructing the instant apartment from 10 households to 391 households, Dong-dong, 13, and 539 households, and on December 22, 2006, the project owner approved the application for alteration of the housing construction project plan on December 22, 2006.

6) The Defendant commenced the new construction of the instant apartment around January 2007 and obtained a provisional approval on April 17, 2009, and completed the pre-use inspection on June 19, 2007.

C. Current status of neighboring military units of the apartment of this case

1) There is a place where the Army ○○○○○ unit was located adjacent to the instant apartment complex, and the said unit is located at the east of the said apartment complex, facing the instant apartment complex, at the east of the fourth line road, and the fence of the military unit is installed from the vicinity of the scheduled school site of the apartment complex to the middle point of the apartment complex, and the attached military unit’s emotional is located at a distance of about 300 meters from the west of the apartment complex to the west of the apartment complex.

2) The ammunition of the Army's ○○○○ unit is located at a point that is less than 70 meters away from the width of the road on the right side of the apartment site (referred to as 1 omitted). The inside of the apartment site is not well visible on the ground, but in the number of floors above 7 and not less than 8 floors of the above apartment complex (dong No. 2 omitted) and (dong No. 1 omitted), there seems to be a building opening of the building and the building, the building of which are placed on the window of stairs, the embankment of the building, and the building opening of the military unit office and the military accommodation.

3) A shooting range of approximately 400 meters away from the apartment of the instant apartment has a shooting range of approximately 15 meters in width and about 35 meters in length, which is managed by the said unit, and approximately 25-30, each of the average four times per month, shootings.

4) In a place where approximately 850m to 1km away from the apartment of the instant apartment, there are the helicopters at the △△△△△△ Group in the Army, on an average weekly basis, 370 times a month and 58 times a month at night.

5) On June 22, 2005, as a result, the Army ○○○○○ unit in relation to the construction of the instant apartment complex conducted a military consultation operational review on the operation of the military consultation, the apartment complex was installed in the instant apartment complex on June 22, 2005, and installed a shielding facility on a building capable of internal observation from the instant apartment complex, installed a fireproof wall on the outer wall of the ammunition and the outer wall, installed soundproof walls to prevent damage caused by the shooting of the field shooting range, and attached a conditional approval on the condition that the aforementioned apartment residents should be promoted and continuously promoted in advance to prevent various civil petitions caused by military training and noise. Meanwhile, the Army △△△△△ Group did not examine the military consultation operational feasibility related to the construction of the instant apartment on the ground that the said apartment complex was not passed through the airspace of the said apartment at ordinary times.

D. Reasons for the sale of the apartment of this case

1) The advertisement of the instant apartment site, such as a car sloping, is indicated as “the scheduled school site,” and the place where the Army ○○○○○ unit, the neighboring military unit, is located is indicated as “finite park.” On the other hand, the building seen as an elementary school is likely to be established next to the apartment site, while the said military unit’s existence or location is not shown.

2) Around 2007, the Defendant stated that “The school districts of the instant apartment are planned to be the △△△△ Elementary School, so detailed matters are stated as follows: “The school hours from the instant apartment to the △△ Elementary School” and stated as about about 10 minutes of the class hours of the instant apartment and about 2 minutes of the vehicle, and on the basis of the contents of the consultation, the Defendant stated as follows: “The noise at the time of the training of the neighboring military unit may occur, and it may be installed within the complex, and as part of the unit can be installed (e.g., the sign 1 omitted), (e., the sign 1 omitted), (e., the sign 3 omitted) and (e., the sales contract concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant and Article 16(3) in relation to the military unit.”

3) On August 23, 2007, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for the purchase of the instant apartment at KRW 297,920,000 among the instant apartment buildings (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) and entered into an agreement with the Defendant to add options, such as balcony expansion with respect to the said apartment at a temporary intervals (hereinafter “instant options agreement”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 4, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 11, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(i) Claim for damages for delay

Since the date of occupancy is delayed than the scheduled date of occupancy specified in the contract for sale in this case due to reasons attributable to the defendant, the defendant is liable to pay damages for delay to the plaintiff.

2) Claim for damages

A) Claim for damages under the Civil Act

In the process of concluding the instant sales contract, the Defendant had the obligation to compensate the Plaintiff for damages caused by tort based on Article 750 of the Civil Act, since the Defendant deceivings the Plaintiff with respect to the establishment of elementary schools and military units in the vicinity as follows:

(1) Whether to establish an elementary school constitutes a matter that may have an important impact on the conclusion of the instant contract for sale in lots. However, even though the Defendant had already decided not to establish an elementary school around October 25, 2005, it indicated the above ( Address 2 omitted) day as the expected school site in the sale in lots advertisement book, and indicated that the above ( Address 2 omitted) day was established in the vicinity of the apartment house, and the employees of the Defendant company also explained that the establishment of an elementary school was confirmed at the place indicated as the scheduled school site. Furthermore, until the establishment of an elementary school, the Defendant displayed only the name of the school and the time of school to attend the school of several children until the date of establishment of the elementary school, and provided specific information on the school name and the time of school attendance, and it is practically impossible for students to attend the school, and it is practically impossible to publish such false information as above. Thus, the Defendant’s act constitutes deception.

(2) The existence of a neighboring park in the apartment transaction constitutes an important matter that may affect the conclusion of a contract as a matter of transaction price. However, the Defendant, in fact, did not have a neighboring park in the vicinity of the apartment of this case, and did not indicate such fact despite the location of the military unit, and expressed that there was a neighboring park in the sale advertisement, such as a car sloping, etc., without indicating such fact. The Defendant, who was aware of the existence of the military unit, actively induced the said Plaintiff by explaining that the military unit was immediately transferred to the said Plaintiff. In addition, the Defendant was well aware of the existence of the military unit at the time of the sale of this case, and the existence of the military unit was not notified of the fact that the military unit was subject to the duty of disclosure under the principle of good faith due to a serious

B) Claim for damages under the Act on Fair Labeling and Advertising (hereinafter “Indication Advertising Act”)

The Defendant indicated that an elementary school is scheduled to be established in the sales advertisement of the apartment of this case, such as a car-slopingg, while advertising the apartment of this case, and indicated that the place where a nearby military unit is located in the sales advertisement such as car-slopingg, etc. of the apartment of this case as a green park is an verhyd and exaggerated advertisement, and the Defendant is obligated to compensate the Plaintiff for damages caused by tort in accordance with Article 3(1)1 and Article 10(2) of the Advertising and Advertising Act.

B. Defendant’s assertion

A) The Defendant was actually determined as school sites in the areas indicated as school sites in the instant apartment sales advertisement, such as car slopings, etc. of the instant apartment, and there was no explanation that the establishment of an elementary school was finalized in the process of concluding the instant sales contract, and it stated that elementary school students living in the said apartment will attend the existing △△ Elementary School established in the process of announcing the invitation of occupants. Therefore, there was no deception against the said Plaintiff in relation to the establishment of an elementary school.

B) The Defendant indicated that there was a neighboring park in the vicinity of the apartment of this case based on the land use plan confirmation prepared by the PPP, and notified the fact that there was a nearby military unit in the public notice of occupants recruitment and the sales contract form, and there was no deception for the said Plaintiff in relation to the nearby military unit.

3. Determination

A. Determination on the claim for damages for delay

1) Occurrence of damages liability

According to Gap evidence Nos. 1 and Eul evidence Nos. 11, and the whole purport of the pleadings, it can be acknowledged that the above plaintiff can cancel the sales contract of this case if it is impossible to move into within 3 months from the scheduled date of move into the land due to reasons attributable to the defendant. The approval of provisional use for the apartment of this case was made on April 17, 2009, and the inspection of use was made on June 19 of the same year. However, as the new construction of this case was delayed later than the expected date of move into the new construction of this case, the defendant revised the scheduled date of move into the sale contract from February 2, 2008 to February 2, 2009, and it can be acknowledged that the new construction of this case's new construction of this case's new construction of this case's new construction of this case's new construction of this case's new construction of this case's 20 days prior to the scheduled date of move into the above changed construction period from February 2, 2009.

Furthermore, if there is an agreement on the occupancy in the sale contract specifically for the period required for preparing for the occupancy, it shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances necessary for the preparation of the occupancy in the sale contract and actual life as seen in the above. Considering the above, it shall be considered that the payment from financial institutions, loan procedures for the remainder, etc., transfer of children's residence, transfer of intermediate payment, payment of maintenance fees, payment of deposit money, and receipt of occupancy certificates, etc. The ordinary financial institution's loan procedure is one week, and it is not necessary to move into the sale contract. The issue of the previous place of residence is 60 days prior to the occupancy designation date, and it is not necessary to complete the disposal thereof, but to reach 10 days prior to the expiration of the sale contract, i.e., the number of directors' occupancy in the sale contract and the extent necessary for the conclusion of the contract is sufficient during the preparation period, 30 days prior to the expiration of the sale contract, and 4 days prior to the expiration of the sale contract.

2) Scope of liability for damages

In full view of the purport of the argument in Gap evidence No. 1, where there is a delay in occupancy under Article 4 (4) of the contract for sale in this case, the defendant may recognize the fact that the payment already paid to the plaintiff is late at the rate of 1.32% per annum, i.e., 1.1.32% per annum, where it is less than one month, 1.32% per annum, where it is less than 1 month, 14.32% per annum, and where it is more than 3 months but not more than 6 months, 15.32% per annum, and where it is more than 6 months, 16.32% per annum, or 16.32% per annum. As seen earlier, the period of delay in occupancy of the defendant is from March 1, 2009 to May 2 of the same year, and thus, the delay period should be paid at the rate of 14.32% per annum or deducted from the balance.

However, as prescribed by the above provision, the Defendant’s damages for delay calculated damages for the period from March 1, 2009 to April 17, 2009, which the Defendant notified, and deducted them from the balance of the sale price to be paid by the Plaintiff. Thus, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff damages for delay for the period from April 18, 2009 to May 2, 20 of the same year, which is 15 days after the above damages for delay was settled.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 1,237,453 (i.e., KRW 210,275,000 x 14.32% x 15/365 x less than KRW 15/365) and damages for delay on each of the above money.

B. Determination as to claim for damages

1) tort liability under the Civil Act

A) General legal principles

In the case of the conclusion of a contract by deception, the defrauded may cancel the contract on the ground of deception and seek the return of the amount paid by the contract, and if he/she does not want the cancellation of the contract, he/she may only claim damages arising from deception (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da48515, Oct. 12, 2006).

B) Regarding the establishment of elementary schools

In light of the fact that the construction project plan of this case had an opinion that it is necessary to secure school sites for new construction around January 2005. However, on October 25 of the same year, since the elementary school students residing in the apartment of this case can be admitted at the existing elementary school, it is no longer necessary to newly construct the existing opinion. Accordingly, the fact that the school distance is about 10 minutes in the public announcement of the invitation of buyers, and about 2 minutes in vehicles are included in the public announcement of the construction project plan of this case. However, the fact that the building seen as the elementary school was established adjacent to the apartment site of this case, and the fact that the construction site of this case was not established adjacent to the above 20th public announcement of the construction site of this case is not likely to be separated from the construction site of this case. However, in light of the fact that the construction site of this case was not established adjacent to the 20th public announcement of the construction site of this case, the construction site of this case, including the fact that the construction site of this case was not established adjacent to the 10th public announcement.

Therefore, on a different premise, the Plaintiff’s claim for damages on this part is without merit to examine further.

C) As to neighboring military units

(1) Whether the act was deceiving by commission

As seen earlier, the Defendant indicated the place where the ○○○○○ unit was located in the instant apartment sale advertisement, and the Defendant indicated the place where the ○○○○○○ unit in the Army, which had a field-based shooting range, as a neighboring park. However, in full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in the written evidence No. 11, the Defendant’s statement as to the sales advertisement as follows: (a) the daily area of the 182,000 square meters, which is indicated as a neighboring park, is an area designated as a neighboring park in accordance with the National Land Planning and Utilization Act; (b) as part of the area, the ○○○○○ unit in the Army was located; and (c) the Defendant indicated the daily area as a neighboring park in the sales advertisement as a neighboring park on the basis of a land use planning certificate prepared by the Pakistan market, and thus, it is difficult to view that such indication was deceiving the said Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

(2) Whether a person was guilty of omission

If it is evident in light of the empirical rule that the other party to a transaction would not have been notified of certain circumstances in real estate transaction, it is obligated to notify the other party of such circumstances in advance in accordance with the principle of good faith. The subject of such duty of disclosure can be acknowledged not only by the direct law, but also by the general principles of contract, customs, or cooking (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da48515, Oct. 12, 2006). As such, the defendant's duty of disclosure to the above plaintiff is the ammunition of the ○○○○○ unit in the Army, and whether the △○○○ unit in the Army and the △△△△△△△ Group in the Army have the duty of disclosure to the plaintiff.

(2) It is difficult to conclude that the Defendant, as a matter of course, had a duty to inform the Plaintiff of the above-mentioned apartment unit on the ground that the above-mentioned apartment unit was located in the Army, and it is difficult to conclude that the apartment unit was located in the 00th unit, and that the apartment unit was located in the 5th unit, and that the apartment unit was located in the 4th unit, and that the apartment unit was located in the 5th unit, and that the apartment unit was located in the 4th unit, and that the apartment unit was located in the 5th unit, and that the apartment unit was located in the 4th unit, and that the apartment unit was located in the 5th unit, and that the apartment unit was located in the 4th unit, and that the apartment unit was located in the 5th unit, and that the apartment unit was located in the 4th unit, and that the apartment unit was located in the 1st unit, and that the apartment unit was located in the 1st unit, and that the apartment unit was located in the 1st unit.

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the plaintiff's assertion under the premise that the defendant has the duty of disclosure.

2) tort liability under the Advertisement and Advertising Act

A) Occurrence of liability for damages

(1) As seen earlier, Article 10(1) of the Display and Advertising Act provides that an enterpriser, etc. who has engaged in unfair labeling or advertising in violation of the provisions of Article 3(1) shall be liable for damages. Article 3(1) provides that an act of labeling or advertising likely to deceive or mislead consumers, etc., which is likely to undermine fair trade order, imposes an obligation not to engage in false or exaggerated labeling or advertising (Article 3(1)1. Article 3(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Display and Advertising Act provides that “an act of labeling or advertising differently from the facts or excessively excessively excessively excessively excessively unfasible,” and Article 3(1)1 of the same Act provides that “an act of labeling or advertising in violation of Article 3(1)2 of the same Act imposes an obligation not to engage in any false or exaggerated labeling or advertising (Article 3(1)1 of the same Act, which is likely to mislead consumers, which is likely to undermine fair trade order.” Article 208(1)60 of the same Act provides that “an act of labeling or advertising shall be determined objectively 60. 97.60.

(2) In light of the above legal principles, the Defendant first indicated the remaining side of the apartment in this case’s apartment as a school site, and as to whether the above apartment is false or exaggerated advertisements that are regulated by the Display and Advertising Act, it is reasonable to view that the above advertising is within the scope socially acceptable in light of the general commercial practices and the good faith principle, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant made false or exaggerated advertisements in relation to the establishment of an elementary school. The Plaintiff’s assertion in this part is not acceptable.

In light of the fact that an elementary school was not established at the time of the sale advertisement in lots, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant’s indication of the scheduled site as a school site constitutes false or exaggerated advertisements that are likely to deceive or mislead buyers. However, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is difficult, as seen earlier, since it is not confirmed that an elementary school was not established at the time of the sale in lots, it is difficult to accept.

(3) Next, considering the following facts: (a) it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s location and advertisement of the instant apartment site constituted a false or exaggerated advertisement; and (b) it is difficult to view that the instant apartment site was located near the instant apartment site by stating the fact that it could not easily be seen that the Defendant’s use of the instant apartment site was likely to interfere with the conclusion of the instant apartment site by means of a false or exaggerated advertisement; and (c) it is also difficult to view that the instant apartment site was located near the instant apartment site as being located in the lower court’s view that it could not easily be seen that the Defendant’s use of the instant apartment site was likely to interfere with the conclusion of the instant apartment site by means of a false or exaggerated advertisement; and (d) it is difficult to view that the instant apartment site was located near the instant military unit’s view that it could not easily be seen that there was an access to the instant apartment site by means of a false or misleading act; and (e) it is also difficult to find that the instant apartment site was located in the lower military unit’s boundary of the instant apartment site.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to compensate the plaintiff for the damages suffered by the plaintiff in accordance with Article 3 (1) 1 and Article 10 of the Act on Labeling and Advertising.

B) Scope of liability for damages

(1) Determination

In a lawsuit seeking compensation for damages caused by a tort, where it is difficult to prove specific amount of damage in light of the nature of the case even though the maximum amount of property damage was recognized as having occurred, the court may determine the amount of damage which is the scope of proximate causal relation by comprehensively taking into account all the relevant indirect facts, including the relationship between the parties, which have been revealed by the result of examination of evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings, the background leading up to the tort and its occurrence of property damage, the nature of damage, and all the circumstances after the occurrence of damage (see Supreme Court Decisions 2002Da6951, 6968, Jun. 24, 2004; 2004Da60447, Nov. 23, 2006).

As to this case, the damage caused to the Plaintiff by the Defendant’s false or exaggerated advertisement with respect to a neighboring park and a nearby military unit is being designated as a neighboring park in the vicinity of the apartment of this case where neighboring parks, such as a false or exaggerated advertisement, were located in the apartment of this case. However, military units are stationed in part of the apartment of this case, and the difference between the present apartment price in the present condition where no park facilities are installed. In this case, if there is a neighboring park or a green area, it is anticipated that not only the role in air environment purification and view profit in the general consumer’s entrance, but also the activities can be performed to help the Plaintiff grow mental and physical and healthy while entering the apartment, and it is clear that the access area designated as a neighboring park in the vicinity of the apartment of this case is restricted by the rule of experience, and even if there is no proper role as a neighboring park, it is not clear that there is an objective risk of noise and explosion in neighboring green areas, such as green areas, even if there is no significant damage and danger of danger in neighboring green areas.

Therefore, since the existence of property damage in this case is recognized, but it is considerably difficult to prove the specific amount of damage, it shall be determined in consideration of the overall circumstances shown in the argument in this case. Considering such circumstances as the current state of Pakistan where the apartment in this case is located, the distance between the apartment in this case and the military unit, especially the vicinity and exposure of the ammunition, and the possibility of transfer to the military unit, it is reasonable to see that the damage to the plaintiff caused by false or exaggerated advertisements related to the defendant's neighboring park and the neighboring military unit is 3% of the purchase price of the apartment in this case.

In this regard, the plaintiff argued that the sale price per unit area is at least 8% higher than that of the apartment that is excellent accessibility in the case of the park, so in the case of the apartment of this case, at least 8% of the market price per unit area should be deemed to occur in relation to the non-establishment of the neighboring park and the existence of military units, but the plaintiff's assertion in this part is not accepted as there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the sale price of KRW 8,937,60 (297,920,000 x 0.03) and damages for delay (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da1440, Apr. 2, 2006). (3) In light of all the above circumstances, it is clear in light of the empirical rule that the Plaintiff suffered considerable mental suffering due to false or exaggerated advertisement about neighboring parks, and it is reasonable to view the consolation money that the Defendant is liable for compensation to the Plaintiff as the amount equivalent

(2) As to the offsetting of negligence

In this case, it was possible to some extent that there is a military unit facility in the vicinity even if the facilities of a large number of military units were scattered in the case of the strike, and if the plaintiff visited the construction site of the apartment of this case prior to the conclusion of the sale contract of this case, it would have been able to know about the present state of neighboring parks and the existence of neighboring military units. However, these circumstances have already been reflected to a certain extent in determining the value of the damages of this case. Furthermore, if the defendant's act of violating the Act on the Labeling and Advertising due to the defendant's false and exaggerated advertisements is intentional tort, and if it is allowed to offset the negligence by considering the above care of the plaintiff, the damage suffered by the plaintiff who purchased the apartment of this case from the perspective of a bona fide consumer would result in the defendant's final profit-making and thus, it is contrary to the concept of fairness.

Therefore, the plaintiff's damage of this case is exempt from offsetting negligence.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff delay compensation of KRW 10,175,053 + KRW 8,937,453 + the amount of damages for sales advertisement of KRW 8,937,60) and to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from June 2, 2012 to February 8, 2013, which is the date following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case sought by the Plaintiff after the delay of occupancy and the date of tort.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the above recognized scope, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. In the case of the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, the amount higher than the amount recognized as the court of first instance shall be accepted, and in the case of the part of the claim for damages due to a tort, the amount less than the amount recognized as the court of first instance shall be accepted, and in the case of the part of the claim for damages due to a tort, the part of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be accepted in part by the defendant's appeal, and the part of the claim for damages due to

The delay of judge's grievance settlement (Presiding Judge)

1) Article 3 (Creation and Development of School Sites) (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Securing, etc. of School Sites (hereinafter “Special Cases concerning the Development and Development of School Sites”) (hereinafter “Special Cases concerning the Development and Development of School Sites”) 300 households or more shall

(2) Article 3 (Prohibition of Unfair Labeling and Advertising) (1) of the Act on Fair Labeling and Advertising (Prohibition of Unfair Labeling and Advertising) No business operator, etc. shall engage in any of the following acts, which are labeling or advertising that are likely to deceive or mislead consumers, and are likely to undermine fair trade order, or cause other business operators, etc. to engage in such acts:

3) The Defendant’s assertion that the occupancy is possible by obtaining approval for temporary use on April 17, 2009 and notifying the occupancy guide on that day is difficult to accept in this respect.

4) Devices to extinguish explosives charged with ammunition, explosion, mine, etc.

5) Powders serving in the future as well as in the correspondence;