2015Na205278 Claims for Damages

Attached 1. The entry of the list of plaintiffs is as shown in the list.

Newan Construction Industry Co., Ltd.

Seoul Western District Court Decision 2014Gahap41025 Decided September 3, 2015

November 11, 2016

January 20, 2017

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiffs falling under the following order of payment shall be revoked.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs the amount in attached Form 2. (2) The amount in each claim column by the plaintiff and KRW 1,100,000 among the amounts in each claim column by the plaintiff, as from January 6, 2015, and KRW 5% per annum from July 15, 2015 to January 20, 2017, and KRW 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

2. The plaintiffs' remaining appeals are dismissed.

3. 1/10 of the total costs of litigation shall be borne by the Plaintiffs, and the remainder by the Defendant.

4. The part on the payment of money as referred to in paragraph (1) may be provisionally executed.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall revoke the judgment against the plaintiffs by the relevant plaintiff in attached Form 2.

② For each amount entered in the claim column and KRW 1,100,000, the following day after the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case, and KRW 4) for each amount entered in the claim column, the amount of money shall be paid at the rate of 5% per annum from the day after the delivery of a copy of the application for modification of the claim of this case and the cause of the claim, and KRW 20% per annum from the following day to the day of full payment.

(The first instance court's judgment became final and conclusive on the grounds that the 12 of P was sentenced to the entire judgment of the first instance court and did not file an appeal against Defendants E, F, 28. G, 38. G, 39. H, 49. I, 60. K, 74. L, 76. L, 81. M, 82, N, 87.0, 88.0, and 88. P 12 of the first instance court did not file an appeal against the entire judgment).

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The court's explanation on this case is identical to the statement of the court of first instance, except for the following two cases, "the judgment on the defendant's defense (the 3.th time between the 8th time and the end of the 12th time)" of the court of first instance. Thus, the court's explanation on this case is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. Part to be used again; and

3. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. Defendant’s defense

The defendant could exercise the above right to claim damages around November 18, 201, which was the first instance court ruling that recognized the defendant's liability for damages caused by the defendant's false or exaggerated advertising in the lawsuit filed by several buyers at the time of moving into the apartment of this case or at the latest. Since the lawsuit of this case was filed on December 23, 2014 after three years have elapsed from the lawsuit of this case, the right to claim damages caused by false or exaggerated advertising under the Display and Advertising Act had already expired before the lawsuit of this case was filed.

B. Determination

1) Article 2 of the Addenda to the Labeling and Advertising Act (amended by Act No. 12380, Jan. 28, 2014) and Article 11(2) of the former Act on Labeling and Advertising (amended by Act No. 12380, Jan. 28, 2014) provide that “the date on which the victim or his/her legal representative becomes aware of damage and of the offender’s identity” refers to the date on which three years elapse from the date on which the right to claim damages from false or exaggerated advertisements under the Labeling and Advertising Act can be exercised. “The date on which the victim becomes aware of damage and of the offender’s identity” refers to the date on which the victim or his/her legal representative becomes aware of the damage and of the offender’s actual and specific perception of the occurrence of damage, as well as the fact that the harmful act constitutes tort at the time of tort, namely, the existence of the illegal harmful act, the occurrence of damage, and the causal relationship between the harmful act and the damage, shall be reasonably recognized by taking into account various objective circumstances in each case and the claim for damages (see, Supreme Court Decision 2010Da161010.

2) At the time of the occupancy of the apartment in the instant apartment, it may be deemed that the Plaintiffs knew that it constitutes false or exaggerated advertisements that indicate the place of a military unit in the door of the instant apartment, but such false or exaggerated advertisements constitute tort. However, the fact that the Plaintiffs were aware of the fact that such false or exaggerated advertisements constitute tort, i.e., the existence of an illegal harmful act, the occurrence of damages, and the causal link between the harmful act and the damage, are insufficient.

3) According to the overall purport of evidence Nos. 2 and 3, and Nos. 20 and 21, among the buyers of apartment buildings of this case, the judgment recognizing the defendant's liability for damages caused by fraudulent or exaggerated advertisements related to neighboring parks and neighboring military units in the lawsuit claiming damages against the defendant (Seoul Western District Court 2009Gahap12900, hereinafter referred to as "related case") was rendered on Nov. 18, 201, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on Nov. 18, 201, and the result of the related case was published on Nov. 22, 201, and the Internet car page (CY) led by the council of occupants of apartment houses of this case was insufficient to deem that the plaintiffs, not the parties to the lawsuit of this case, were aware of the result of the first instance trial, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that there was no causation between the judgment and the court of final and conclusive damages related to the tort of this case 201.

4) Therefore, the fact that false or exaggerated advertisements of the plaintiffs around November 1, 201 and around August 18, 201, which were decided by the first instance court of the relevant case, constitute a tort. In other words, it cannot be deemed that the plaintiffs knew of the existence of an unlawful harmful act, the occurrence of damages, and the causal relationship between the harmful act and the damage, etc. as a recognition of the facts constituting a tort. There is no other evidence to prove that the plaintiffs had known of the above circumstances three years prior to the filing of the lawsuit in this case. Thus, the defendant'

4. Sub-committee:

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (amended by the first instance court as of July 16, 2015) with respect to each of the money recorded in the claim column for each of the 1,100,000 won among the money recorded in the claim column for each of the plaintiffs as the damages damages for each of the plaintiffs, as claimed by the plaintiffs, from January 6, 2015, following the service date of a duplicate of the complaint in this case, and 4) from July 15, 2015, following the service date of a duplicate of the request for the purport of this case and the change of the cause of the claim, to the plaintiffs as to the existence and scope of the obligation, from January 20, 2017, which is the date the judgment of the court of first instance is rendered, and from the next day to the date of full payment).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder of the claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit. Since the part against the plaintiffs falling under the money ordered to pay as above in the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, this is revoked and the above recognized money is ordered to be paid to the defendant, and the plaintiffs' remaining appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.

The presiding judge and the assistant judge;

Judges Nam-soo

Judges Lee Jae-ra