1. All appeals filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) against the instant principal lawsuit and counterclaim are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be the principal lawsuit.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows, in addition to the "decision on the defendant's assertion and counterclaim claim" as stated in Paragraph 3 of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and as stated in Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance, it refers to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, it is cited by applying the main text of

2. Forms 3, 11, 4, and 14 of the decision of the court of first instance shall be applied to the remaining parts as follows:

A person shall be appointed.

3. Determination as to the defendant's assertion and counterclaim

A. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion is that the actual area of the instant housing is equal to 23 square meters, but the area reaches 32 square meters, by posting promotional materials, and by inducing the Plaintiff to explain and confirm the area of the instant housing in violation of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Act on Fair Labeling and Advertising and the Licensed Real Estate Agents Act, etc., and thus, the Defendant, as the instant counterclaim, dismissed the part concerning the area of nine square meters in the size below the instant sales contract on the ground of mistake or deception.

Therefore, the Plaintiff is obligated to return to the Defendant the amount of KRW 37,80,000 for the nine grade portion (=9 x 4,200,000 won for the usual x 4.2 million won for the usual x 31,80,000 won remaining after deducting the amount of KRW 6,00,000, which was reduced by the Plaintiff from the amount of KRW 10,000 for the return to the Plaintiff. Since the Plaintiff offsets the amount of KRW 13,00,000 for the Plaintiff’s claim against the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s claim against the principal lawsuit is without merit, and the Plaintiff seeks payment of KRW 18,80,00 for the counterclaim (= KRW 31.8 million - 13 million

Although the Defendant did not reduce the purport of the counterclaim, the Defendant substantially changed the cause of the counterclaim in the trial as above. Even if the Plaintiff’s return of unjust enrichment is not recognized, the conclusion is identical to the Defendant, as it is reasonable to deem that the claim for damages arising from a tort equivalent to the amount is a tort.

B. In general, determination 1 is accompanied by a somewhat exaggeration or false exaggeration in advertising and advertising of goods.