logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2018.06.12 2015다35188
손해배상(기)
Text

All appeals are dismissed.

Costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding the plaintiffs' grounds of appeal

A. On the grounds as indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the construction of the floor of the instant apartment living room as a strong floor could not be deemed lower construction.

Examining the record in light of the relevant legal principles, the said determination by the lower court is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the criteria and method of determining defects, or by misapprehending the logical and empirical rules

B. On the grounds as indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the installation of an elevator directly connected to each household at an underground parking lot on the premise that the apartment E-dong of this case installs an underground parking lot was incorporated into the sales contract, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and in this regard, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant advertised the apartment to the extent that the Defendant might have mistakenly known it to consumers or excessively neglected the fact.

Examining the record in light of the relevant legal principles, although the lower court’s explanation on this part was somewhat inappropriate, it is acceptable to have rejected the Plaintiffs’ assertion. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on false or exaggerated advertisements, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on false or exaggerated advertisements.

2. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

A. Based on the premise that the resolution of the management and disposal general meeting was incorporated into the content of the sales contract, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, found that there exist ① the construction of the panel with the front door newspaper display, ② the alteration construction of the tent, ③ the alteration construction of the balcony floor bet, ④ the alteration construction of the balcony floor bet, ④ the supply of water, fire extinguishing, and drain pipe mashing construction, etc. on the instant apartment.

arrow