[1] The case holding that the cancellation or cancellation of a sales contract cannot be recognized on the grounds of an agreement to substitute an intermediate payment with a security deposit, or modification of a design of a new commercial building, etc., in the process of concluding a sales contract for commercial buildings and brand salesroom occupants

[2] The case holding that the sales contract for the above commercial building may be cancelled on the ground that the seller's failure to explain or notify the seller of the fact that the seller could not achieve the original purpose planned through the initial sales contract, in case where the pole's location and area in the commercial building sold in lots not only cut off the view of the pole's view, but also seriously restrict the customer's and the owner of the commercial building

[1] The case holding that the cancellation of the sales contract can not be recognized on the grounds of the above circumstances, on the grounds of the above circumstances, since the fact that the sales contract was made for the purpose of replacing intermediate payments with the advertisement of salesroom occupants abroad, the guarantee of rental profit, and the guarantee of rental deposit, etc., but such circumstance is merely merely an inducement of subscription, and it cannot be deemed as an important part of the sales contract as long as the increase in the number of commercial buildings due to the change in the design, etc. of the said new commercial building could affect the conclusion of the sales contract, and the above circumstances cannot be seen as a cancellation of the sales contract on the grounds of the above circumstances, and on the other hand, the above circumstances cannot be recognized as a fraudulent act exceeding the socially acceptable level by notifying the specific facts of the transaction to the extent that they would be criticized in light of the duty of good faith and good faith, or that the buyers caused mistake in the important part of the contract.

[2] The case holding that the sales contract for commercial buildings can be cancelled on the ground that the seller has a duty to provide accurate and sufficient information to the buyers in the process of concluding the sales contract and explain them in an appropriate time, on the ground that the seller's failure to explain or notify the fact that the seller could not achieve the original purpose planned through the initial sales contract, in light of the location and area of the columns located in the commercial buildings sold in lots and caused significant restrictions to the customer as well as to the brokerage line with the business owner in case the columns seriously affect the conclusion of the sales contract

[1] Articles 110(1), 543, 544, and 546 of the Civil Act; Article 7 of the Act on Sale of Buildings / [2] Articles 2 and 544 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1 and 51 others (Attorney Choi Dong-dong, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff (Appointedd Party) 53

Maker Co., Ltd. (Law Firm continental Aju, Attorney Kim Min-min, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

April 21, 2010

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 8 60,108,840 won to the plaintiff 60,108,840 won to the plaintiff 28,50 won, the 28,910,700 won to the plaintiff 53, the 9,636,900 won, and each of the above amounts, 6% per annum from November 5, 2009 to May 26, 2010, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The remaining plaintiffs' claims except plaintiffs 8, 28, and 53 (Appointed Party) and the remaining claims of plaintiffs 8 and 28, and the plaintiff (Appointed Party)'s main claims and the remaining conjunctive claims are all dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 1/5 of the portion arising between the plaintiffs 8 and 28 and the defendant are borne by the above plaintiffs, the remainder by the defendant, and 9/10 of the portion arising between the plaintiff (appointed party) 53 and the defendant is borne by the plaintiff (Appointed party) 53, and the remainder by the defendant.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The purport of the claim by the plaintiffs other than the plaintiff (Appointed Party) 53: the defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs other than the plaintiff (Appointed Party) 53 the amount stated in attached Table 3. The defendant shall pay the amount of money by 20% per annum from the day following the day of delivery of a copy of the application for modification of the claim by November 4, 2009 to the day of complete payment.

The purport of the claim of the plaintiff (Appointed Party) 53: The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff (Appointed Party) 53 231,285,600 won, 77,095,200 won, and 20% interest per annum from the day following the day when the copy of the application for amendment of the claim of this case was served on November 4, 2009 to the day of complete payment. Preliminaryly, the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff (Appointed Party) 53 57,821,40 won, 19,273,80 won, and 20% interest per annum from the day following the day when the copy of the application for amendment of the claim of this case was served on November 4, 2009 to the day of complete payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Execution of the instant shopping district sales business and conclusion of a sales agency contract

The Defendant concluded a contract on the sales agency of the instant commercial building with the Cheongju-si, the company, etc., to construct and sell the 4th underground and the 8th ground-based 8th ground-based lux shop (hereinafter “the instant commercial building”).

(b) Conclusion of sales contracts;

(1) The Plaintiffs indicated in the Plaintiff’s list (Appointed Party), 53, Appointor and 2, through the employees, etc. of the sales counter-party event, concluded a sales contract (hereinafter “each of the instant sales contracts”) with the Defendant to purchase each of the commercial buildings listed in the table 1 (hereinafter “each of the instant commercial buildings”) as follows (hereinafter “the instant sales contract”). The Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the 53 and the Appointor, etc.; the rest of the Plaintiffs are “Plaintiff 1, etc.”; and Plaintiff 53 and Plaintiff 1, etc. (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”).

(2) The Plaintiffs paid the amount indicated in the “total amount” column to the Defendant as indicated below:

Table 1

(3) Of the contents of each of the instant sales contracts, the main contents pertaining to the issues of the instant case are as follows.

(1) No defendant shall change the location of an object sold in lots at will: Provided, That the indication of a room may be changed by the division and consolidation referred to in the following subparagraphs, and shall be notified to the buyer before the sale of the building (Article 7 (4)).

(2) Sale area of a building and co-ownership of the site indicated in the written contract may be partially increased or decreased according to a design change, etc., and where there exists any increase or decrease, the balance may be calculated on the basis of the sale price for the difference between the area stated in the written contract and the register, and the balance may be settled at

(3) Where all kinds of printed materials, models or drawings are to be changed in part after the conclusion of a contract for sale in lots, the defendant shall notify the buyer of the fact, and the buyer shall not cancel the contract for such reason (Article 7(6)).

(4) In accordance with Article 7 of the Act on Sale of Building Units (hereinafter “Building Units Act”), where a design that may seriously affect the interests of buyers, such as an increase or decrease in the size of a building or in the number of floors, is intended to be changed pursuant to Article 10 of the Enforcement Decree of the said Act, prior to approval for use of the building sold in lots, the defendant shall obtain consent from the buyers, and where he/she intends to change the design pursuant to Article 8 (2) of the said Enforcement Decree, he/she shall notify the buyer of the details thereof in advance. In such cases, the timing, procedures, etc. for giving consent and notification shall be governed by Article 8 (1) and (3) of the Enforcement Rule

(5) Where the Defendant receives the following corrective orders from the competent permitting authority pursuant to Article 9 of the Act on Sale of Buildings, the buyer may cancel this contract (Article 10(4)):

1. Where the contents of advertisement for sale are different from those of sale report;

2. Where the advertisement for sale does not include matters prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as the location, use and size of buildings;

(6) Pursuant to Article 9(4) due to authorization, permission, relevant statutes, or any other justifiable ground, where the defendant promotes a change in the design, the buyer shall not refuse the approval and may not request the termination or cancellation of the contract without justifiable grounds (Article 10(6))

(7) Where a contract is rescinded for reasons other than Article 9 (1) and (2) by the defendant or the buyer, the person responsible for the cancellation of the contract shall pay the other party the amount paid as the down payment as a penalty (Article 11 (3)).

C. Plaintiffs’ cancellation notice

The Plaintiffs notified the Defendant of the cancellation of each of the instant sales contracts by serving a duplicate of the complaint of this case.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 9-1 to 31, Gap evidence 23-1 to 27, Eul evidence 11-2, the purport of whole pleadings

2. Whether a contract for sale in lots is cancelled due to default;

A. Determination on the assertion of cancellation of the sales contract concerning the non-performance of the contents of the sales advertisement

(1) The plaintiffs' assertion

(A) Next, as seen in paragraphs (b) and (c) above, the sales advertisement, etc. on the "saleroom occupants of overseas well-known brand" was incorporated into the contract contents by supplementing each of the instant sales contract. However, since the Defendant failed to perform this, the Plaintiffs cancel each of the instant sales contract on the grounds of the Defendant's nonperformance. Therefore, the Defendant shall return the sale price and the interest on delay thereof to the Plaintiffs due to restitution according to the termination of the contract. Accordingly, the Defendant shall return the sale price and the interest on delay thereof to the Plaintiffs, and the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) shall pay the down payment equivalent to the down payment agreed with penalty pursuant to Article 11(3) of the instant sales contract (the Plaintiff 53 asserted the above contents and the contents as described in

(A) Salesroom occupants of overseas famous brands

The Defendant advertised that more than 80 overseas brand stores will be located on the ground of the brand supply promise written between IMMWS Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “MBS”), and that the salesroom would have been located in the instant commercial building. However, due to the closure of the business, the salesroom in the overseas master brand store was impossible to perform.

(B) an agreement with the commitment to guarantee rental proceeds and to substitute intermediate payment with a security deposit.

The Defendant advertised that the stable rental profit of 10% or 12% is guaranteed in the event that the Plaintiffs purchased the instant commercial building, and specifically explained to the Plaintiffs on the fixed return rate, such as the deposit and monthly rent. In addition, some of the Plaintiffs prepared a letter of guarantee of rental profit. However, the Plaintiffs did not obtain at all at all.

In addition, the Defendant, at the time of sale, entered into a lease agreement with the Plaintiffs on each of the instant commercial buildings, explained that the lease deposit received from the lessees would substitute for the secondary intermediate payment equivalent to about 20% of the sale price. However, the Defendant, without fulfilling the above contents, demanded the payment of the second intermediate payment.

(C) A non-interest loan agreement for any balance.

The Defendant advertised that multiple buyers may receive a loan from a new bank at interest without interest. However, the Plaintiffs were unable to obtain a loan from a new bank for the remainder of the sale price.

(2) Determination as to the assertion regarding the salesroom occupants of overseas famous brands

(A) Facts of recognition

1) From January 26, 2007, the Defendant advertised for the sale of the instant commercial building on a daily newspaper, etc. on several occasions. The sale advertising was used as expressions such as “GG electronic, LGmmmmmmmmmmmms in the vicinity of the instant commercial building,” “GG electronic, LGmmmmmmms, HGmmmmmmms, and Hummmmms, and Hummms, universities and colleges are scheduled to enter the complex film group comprised of eight screenings in the vicinity of the instant commercial building,” “4 to 7th class, the demand for young floors is expected to be high,” and “Semsmsms in low prices, such as the establishment of salesroom and import brand shop.”

2) On August 13, 2007, the Defendant entered into a franchise store agreement and a product supply agreement with MBS to be supplied with a foreign-registered brand product from MBS.

3) At that time, the Defendant’s phrase “MFFS’s brand supply assurance letter is posted or 80 overseas oil brand occupants” and “foreign oil-free brand discount-sale-sale-type shop” is indicated in the following: (a) advertising leaflets and promotional hub, etc. manufactured by the Defendant for the sale of the instant commercial building; and (b) IMFS’s brand supply assurance letter is posted; or (c) overseas oil-free brand sales-type discount-sale.

4) The Defendant: (a) prepared a “Creop MaD Formation proposal” and discussed how to form and place a commercial building by overseas name brand on the first and second floors of the instant commercial building.

5) MND PLUS, etc. was used by MND PLUS. Around May 31, 2008, ex officio discontinuance of business was made. As of the date of the closing of argument in the instant commercial building, the store dealing with overseas brands was not located.

[Based on the recognition] Evidence No. 1-1, 2, 3, 4, 2, A-2, 38, 44, 46, 47, 1-1 through 3, 7-1 through 26, 7-2, 9, 10, 10, and 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings

(B) Determination

1) In order to cancel a sales contract on the ground of nonperformance, it shall be the principal obligation to the extent that the purpose of the sales contract is not fulfilled because it is unnecessary to achieve the purpose of the sales contract, and if it is not fulfilled, it shall be deemed that the contract had not been concluded. The distinction between the principal obligation and the incidental obligation among the contractual obligations shall not be rescinded in the event that it is merely a failure to perform the incidental obligation. The distinction between the principal obligation and the incidental obligation from the contractual obligation shall be determined by the parties’ reasonable intent expressed at the time of the conclusion of the contract, regardless of the independent value of the performance, or clearly expressed at the time of the conclusion of the contract, and shall be determined by the parties’ reasonable intent clearly expressed at the time of the contract, and shall take into account various circumstances such as the content, purpose, and consequence of the failure to perform the contract

2) As seen earlier, it is recognized that the Defendant made an exaggerated publicity and advertisement as if there were 80 overseas-use brand stores in the instant commercial building on the first and second floors of the instant commercial building under the condition that the Defendant entered into a IMS shop agreement and a product supply contract with MIMS and planned to store overseas-use brand stores in the instant commercial building.

When entering into each of the instant sales contracts, buyers including the Plaintiffs seems to have expected to be favorable to their business by securing a large number of stores handling overseas-use brands in the instant commercial building. However, the Defendant’s above sales advertisement is merely merely an inducement of subscription, barring any special circumstance, and it cannot be said that the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the belief that 80 overseas-use brands will be all sold. Although it was advertised that overseas-use brands will be sold, it is difficult to view that each of the instant sales contracts becomes grounds for cancelling each of the instant sales contracts even if the overseas-use brand was not actually located. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs’ assertion claiming the cancellation of each of the instant sales contracts is without merit.

(3) Determination as to the relevant assertion, such as the promise to guarantee rental proceeds and the arrangement to substitute part payments

(A) Facts of recognition

1) From July 11, 2007, the Defendant advertised for the sale of the instant commercial building on the “intersection”. The sales advertisement is indicated as follows: “The estimated return rate table for one year from the shopping mall shopping mall,” and “13.26% above the ground level 14.45% above the ground level 14.53% above the second floor 13.28% above the ground level 13.27% above the ground level 8% above the ground level 13.27% above the ground level 13.27% above the ground level.”

2) In addition, on July 27, 2007, in relation to the instant commercial building, the term “Tye-lease 100% of pre-lease / Overseas brand 100%) and the term “an overseas-use brand-type brand-type brand-type store store-type 10% of annual investment confirmation payment” were used.

3) The phrase “a fixed return rate of 12%”, “a stable return of 12% per annum”, “a stable return of 10% per annum”, and “a fixed return of 10% per annum” is indicated in the title “the anticipated return of 13.26% per annum for the shopping mall of the instant commercial building”, which is produced by the Defendant for the sale of the instant commercial building. The phrase “the first floor (14.45%) above the second floor (14.45%) above the second floor (14.5%) above the second floor (14.53%) above the third floor (14.28%) above the second floor (13.28%) above the ground (13.27%) above the contract.”

4) The Defendant: (a) drafted and delivered to Plaintiff 37, 16, 2, 27, 6, 31, 49, and 3 a letter of guarantee of rental profit security with the content of promising a certain return on profit or a certain amount of deposit and rent.

5) Meanwhile, at the time of the sale consultation or the sales contract of this case, the defendant or the employees of the sales agency explain that they will substitute the intermediate payment to be paid by the plaintiffs with the security deposit received from the lessee after first leasing each of the instant commercial buildings to some of the plaintiffs at the time of the sales contract of this case.

6) In fact, the Defendant concluded a lease contract with a service company for the lease of the instant commercial building, and concluded a lease contract for some commercial buildings, but did not arrange for the buyer to conclude a lease contract if the buyer did not pay any balance.

7) On April 7, 2009, the Defendant received a corrective order from the Fair Trade Commission to the effect that “the Defendant shall not re-contribute any unfair advertising act that is likely to deceive or mislead consumers while advertising the return on profit of the commercial building of this case.”

[Based on the recognition] Evidence Nos. 1-1, 2, 4, 3-1, 3-2, 4, 6, 7-1 through 5, 17, 24-1, 25-1, 3, 5, 27-1, 44, 46, 1-1 through 26 of evidence Nos. 7, 7-1 through 5, 17, 24-1, 25-25-1, 25-3, 3, 5, 27-1, 27-1, 44, 46, 49, 7-1 through 26 of the evidence Nos. 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings by Nonparty 1

(B) Determination

It is recognized that the Defendant made an advertisement and advertising that a certain rate of rent should be guaranteed when the commercial building in this case is sold in lots, and that the Defendant or the employees of the sales agency agree that the employees of the sales agency would substitute part of the intermediate payment to which the Plaintiffs should pay with the deposit received from the lessee for the part of the Plaintiffs at the time of each sales contract in this case.

However, the issue of return on profit or lease of the commercial building of this case is expected to be premised on the case where both the commercial building of this case are normally sold and the commercial zone formation is formed. As such, it may be anticipated to a certain extent that, as if the defendant had advertised, there may be no guarantee of profit or no lease. In the case of the sale of the commercial building, the investment risk would always follow the investment risk. Accordingly, under its own responsibility and judgment, the investor must estimate the degree of return on profit or the premium of the commercial building of this case by predicting the degree of what the return on profit or the premium of the commercial building of this case was sold in lots, taking into account all the circumstances, such as the current status of neighboring prices, return on profit and premium, real estate market trend, and the ability of the sale company, etc. In light of this, the investment in the return on profit or the promise on lease between the defendant and the commercial building of this case can not be seen as having presented an incentive for subscription, and thus, the content of the contract of this case or there is no obligation to guarantee the defendant's return (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da469798.).

(4) Determination as to the assertion regarding the failure to repay the balance loan agreement

(A) Facts of recognition

1) From January 26, 2007 to the daily newspaper, etc., the Defendant advertised for the sale of the commercial building of this case on several occasions, and the sale advertisement contains the phrase “to lend 40% of the new bank (the time of loan)”.

2) Also, the advertising leaflets and promotional hub, etc. produced by the Defendant for the sale of the instant commercial building are also indicated as “40% loans available for the new bank (the time of loans)” and “40% loans of the new bank (the time of loans borrowed).” However, only the evidence No. 3-2 of the same case stated as “the remaining interest-free loans for 40% for 1 year”.

3) At the time of conclusion of each sales contract of this case, the Defendant or its employees explained that they can receive loans from the Plaintiffs for balance equivalent to 40% of the sales price of this case.

4) The Defendant tried to enable buyers, including the Plaintiffs, to obtain the outstanding loans from a new bank. However, at the time of concluding each contract for sales in the instant case, the Defendant was unable to obtain the outstanding loans from a new bank on the wind that the terms and conditions of loans from a commercial bank are strict due to the depression of financial crisis.

5) Around May 29, 2009, the Defendant sent a loan guide to the buyers to the effect that the amount equivalent to 40-60% of the sales price can be loaned from the point of Jung-gu branch of the Bank. The buyers, including the Plaintiffs, can receive a loan from the point of Jung-gu branch of the Bank of Korea as of April 7, 2010 equivalent to 40% of the sales price of the instant case.

[Based on the recognition] Evidence No. 3-1, 2, Evidence No. 4, Evidence No. 5, Evidence No. 6, Evidence No. 25-1, 3, 5, Evidence No. 28-2, Evidence No. 44, Evidence No. 51, Evidence No. 7-1 through 26, Evidence No. 13, Evidence No. 13, the witness’s testimony, and the purport of the whole pleadings

(B) Determination

The possibility of the procurement of the parcelling-out price belongs to the original responsible area of the parcelling-out price.However, there is room to interpret that the possibility of the loan of the parcelling-out price is the basis of the parcelling-out contract exceptionally in the event that the parcelling-out price was rapidly interrupted by the economic situation after the conclusion of the agreement on the loan of the parcelling-out price with the financial institution so that the buyers may receive the loan from the buyers by advertising and advertising it.

In this case, even if the plaintiffs were unable to obtain a loan of the balance equivalent to 40% of the sale price from a new bank in accordance with the contents of the sale advertisement, and the possibility of the loan of the sale price was based on the sale contract, as seen earlier, each of the sale contracts in this case cannot be cancelled on the ground that the plaintiffs failed to perform the balance loan agreement as long as they had already received the loan from the KNF branch of

In addition, although only subparagraph 3-2 of the certificate of evidence No. 3-2 states that the number of buyers can obtain loans without interest, it is unclear whether the Defendant manufactured or distributed the advertising leaflet, whether the Plaintiffs concluded each of the instant sales contracts by reporting the content of interest-free loans listed in the advertising leaflet, and the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) also stated in the case No. 2009Gahap560 in which the Plaintiff stated that “in entering into the sales contract, the terms and conditions of the advertisement-free interest benefits were or not known at the time of entering into the sales contract,” it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant agreed to lend the remainder of the purchase price to the buyers including the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs’ assertion based on the premise that the Defendant agreed to lend the remainder as interest-free interest to the buyers including the Plaintiffs is without merit.

B. Determination on the assertion of cancellation on the ground of impossibility of performing design changes

(1) The plaintiffs' assertion

Around August 2, 2008, the Defendant changed the design of the commercial building of this case by obtaining permission to change the construction permission matters for the commercial building of this case from the Cheongju market. The above change of the design is a change that may seriously affect the interests of buyers by causing the increase or decrease of the building size or the number of floors, and constitutes a change of the design as provided for in Article 7(1) of the Building Sale Act and Article 7(7) of the sales contract of this case. Therefore, as stipulated in each of the sales contract of this case, the Defendant must obtain written consent to the above change of the design as prescribed by the sales contract of this case. However, the Defendant did not explain the above change of the design to the Plaintiffs and did not obtain written consent without properly explaining the contents of the above change of the design. Furthermore, the number of stores of the commercial building of this case was significantly increased due to the above change of the design, and the public part of the sales contract of this case was reduced due to the reduction of the number of stores of indoor theaters, etc., the Plaintiffs are unable to perform their duty to pay the contract deposit of this case.

(2) Facts of recognition

(A) Around July 10, 2006, the Defendant obtained a permit to build a building on the commercial building of this case from the Cheongju market, and filed a sale report to the Cheongju market on January 22, 2007 and accepted the sale report around January 25, 2007.

(B) Around June 25, 2007, the Defendant changed the first design to the commercial building of this case. Around September 10, 2007, the second design was changed, and around February 10, 2008, the third design was changed.

(C) Around August 1, 2008, the Defendant applied for a change in the matters of the building permit on the instant commercial building to the Cheongju market. The content is that the change in the design that increases the site area of 70.4 square meters (hereinafter “instant change in design”) and the use of the instant commercial building is changed to cultural and assembly facilities, sales facilities, and Class II neighborhood living facilities. The change in the building area, total floor area, and floors did not occur due to the said change in the design.

(D) At the time, the Defendant: (a) as indicated in the attached Table 2

(E) Around August 22, 2008, the Cheongju Mayor changed the construction permission of the commercial building of this case.

(F) The following was changed as to the design modification of the instant case.

1) The number of the first floor of the instant commercial building increased from 143 to 202, from 139 to 171, and from 35 to 87, the number of the commercial buildings of the second floor was increased. However, this is mainly conducted to reduce the amount of the sales price by dividing the commercial buildings in consideration of the amount to be borne by the sales price.

2) Although the space for indoor performance (benent) was scheduled until the time of the second design change for the second floor of the commercial building in this case, there was no space for indoor performance from the time of the third design change, and approximately 10 commercial buildings were newly created.

3) After the modification of the design in the instant case, there were parts that lost or reduced routes in the instant commercial building, but there were grounds for passage or wide range of passage.

(G) The location of the commercial building sold by the plaintiffs due to the modification of the design of this case does not change without the intent of the plaintiffs, or the area of the exclusive use area has decreased. However, the area of the common use area has been reduced or increased as shown below in the following Table 2>

Table 2: Table 2. Omission

[Reasons for Recognition] A’s 18-1, 2, 19-1, 2, 19-2, 1, 20-1 through 5, 20-1, 2, 21-1, 2, 22-1 through 216, 39-1, 2, 40-1, 41-2, 41-1, 2, 42-1, 42-1, 48-1, 2, 48-2, 14, 15-2, and 15-2, the result of the on-site inspection by this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

(3) Determination

(A) As the change of the number of commercial buildings of this case occurred several times, the number of commercial buildings of this case has increased remarkably, and it is recognized that there have been a decrease in the number of commercial buildings of this case including Plaintiffs 17, 2, 12, 53, etc. (Appointed Party-Appointed Party-Appointed Party-Appointed Party-Appointed 103-1, 103-2), Plaintiffs 15, 2, 5, 16 (101, 2091), 11 (2076), 1,26, 26, 9, 14, 7, 6, 18, 4, 39, 29 (2058, 2090-1), 47, 46, 49, 444, and 52, which had been scheduled to have been indoor performance halls.

However, for the following reasons, the plaintiffs' assertion claiming the cancellation of the sales contract of this case on the premise that the increase in the number of commercial buildings due to the change of design, etc. of this case constitutes an important part of the sales contract as long as it affects the conclusion of the sales contract

1) The number of commercial buildings in this case increased considerably due to the change of the design, etc. of this case, but this was caused by the small division of commercial buildings in consideration of the amount to be borne by the sale price, and there was no particular change in the total area of exclusive area.

2) Article 7(2) of the instant sales contract provides, “If necessary, the Defendant may change the entrance and exit or install additional facilities even after the sale in lots, and the buyer shall not raise any objection thereto, such as a claim for damages.” Article 7(5) of the instant sales contract provides, “The sale area of the building and the co-ownership share of the site indicated in the contract may be partially increased or decreased depending on a design change, etc., and if there is any increase or decrease in the size of the contract and the land on the register, a settlement may be made between the parties at the time of payment of the balance based on the purchase price.” Article 7(6) of the instant sales contract provides, “The indication of the location, design drawings, etc. of all kinds of printed materials, model lines and facilities on the register may be changed after the conclusion of the sales contract, and the Defendant shall be notified to the buyer, and the buyer shall not cancel the contract on such ground. In light of these provisions, each of the instant sales contract was scheduled to modify it from the time of the conclusion of the contract of each of the instant sales contract.”

3) Due to the change of the design of this case, there are almost no changes in the land share and exclusive use area of each of the commercial buildings of this case, and there is no change in the location of commercial buildings without the intent of the plaintiffs.

4) Although the passage has been lost or reduced due to the modification of the design, etc. of the instant commercial building, there is no big change in the area of the common use area of the instant commercial building as a whole due to the occurrence or widening of passage.

In light of these circumstances, the number of commercial buildings of this case increased due to the modification of the design of the commercial building of this case, the public area of some buyers of this case reduced somewhat, and the indoor performance hall (benent performance hall) was scheduled to be installed on the second floor of the commercial building of this case, and it cannot be deemed that the plaintiffs could not achieve the purpose of each sales contract of this case.

(B) In addition, the area of the building site in this case increases rather than the area of the building site due to the design modification, and the height of the building in this case is not reduced or the total area of the exclusive or common areas of the commercial building in this case is not decreased. Therefore, the design modification in this case does not constitute a design modification requiring the consent of all buyers in accordance with Article 7(1) of the Building Sale Act and each subparagraph of Article 10 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act. Since the design modification in this case did not obtain the consent of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs' assertion that each contract for the sale in this case may be cancelled is without merit without further determination.

C. Determination as to the assertion of cancellation by Plaintiffs 8, etc. regarding the existence of columns

(1) Claims by Plaintiffs 8, 9, 24, 28, 45, and 46

In the commercial buildings sold by Plaintiff 8, 9, 24, 28, 45, and 46 (hereinafter “Plaintiff 8, etc.”), there exist the same columns as indicated in the above Table-2> However, the Defendant did not accurately notify the existence and condition of the columns at the time of each sales contract in this case, and on this ground, the sales contract in this case was cancelled because Plaintiff 8, etc. could not achieve the purpose of the sales contract due to the columns. Therefore, the Defendant shall return the sale price and interest interest thereon to Plaintiff 8, etc. due to the cancellation of the contract, and shall pay the amount equivalent to the down payment agreed to pay penalty pursuant to Article 11(3) of the sales contract in this case.

(2) Facts of recognition

(A) Each commercial building sold by Plaintiff 8 et al. has a pillar as described in the above Table-2>

(B) Nonparty 1, an employee of the Defendant, expressed a drawing at the time of sales consultation or conclusion of sales contract to the employees of sales agency, and provided an explanation about the existence of the columns if there is columns. However, at the time of sales consultation or conclusion of each sales contract of this case, the employees of the sales agency did not accurately explain the existence of columns to Plaintiff 8, etc., and the size of the location and the size of the columns.

(C) However, in the design drawing of the instant commercial building, there is an indication “a” or “a” on the location where the pole exists. However, there is no separate phrase that can be known whether the indication refers to a pole. In addition, as the indication “a” or “a” is indicated in a certain size regardless of the size of the pole, it only indicates the existence of the pole, and the indication alone alone is difficult to grasp the ratio of the area in which the pole occupies in the exclusive use area of the commercial building.

(D) The location, size, etc. of columns existing in a commercial building sold by Plaintiff 8, etc. are as follows.

1) There exists a pole on the front corner portion in a commercial building 3020 which was sold by Plaintiff 28. The part where the pole exists in the commercial building and the part where Plaintiff 28 does not use the exclusive use area of the commercial building is about 0.45 m2 (0.67m x 0.68m ) and the exclusive use area ( approximately 4.122m m m2) reaches about 1.05% of the exclusive use area ( approximately 0.67m x 0.68m ). In addition, the said pole has a hydrant installed, but there is a limitation on the spatial utilization.

2) There exists a pole in the back 3022 of the commercial building that was sold by Plaintiff 8. The part where the pole exists in the commercial building and the part where Plaintiff 8 did not use the exclusive use area of the commercial building is about 0.365 square meters (0.69m x 0.53m) and the exclusive use area ( approximately 3.780m m m ) reaches about 9.67% of the exclusive use area ( approximately 0.69m x 0.53m ). The said pole is located in the part of the back m gate of the commercial building and it cannot be deemed that it itself prevents the view of the commercial building or brings a significant restriction on the company line with the customer. However, it is difficult to view that there is a more significant size of the columns on the front m m gate of the commercial building, thereby blocking considerable part of the m m s

3) There are columns in the back 3026 square meters on the commercial building sold by Plaintiff 9. The part where the columns exist in the above commercial building and the part where Plaintiff 9 is unable to use the exclusive use area of the above commercial building is about 0.370 square meters (0.65m x 0.57m m ) and the exclusive use area ( approximately 4.181m m ) reaches about 8.86%.

4) There exists columns in the back 1054 commercial building that Plaintiff 24 purchased in lots. The part where Plaintiff 24 exists in the said commercial building and thus Plaintiff 24 fails to use the exclusive use area of the said commercial building is about 0.621 square meters (0.55 meters x 1.13 meters) and the exclusive use area (5.670 square meters) reaches the extent of 10.96%.

5) There are columns on the back 1144 square meters sold by Plaintiff 45 and 46. The part where the columns exist in the above commercial building and the part where Plaintiff 45 and 46 did not use the exclusive use area of the above commercial building is approximately 0.371 square meters (0.53 square meters x 0.70 square meters) and the exclusive use area (2.790 square meters) reaches the extent of 13.29 percent.

6) Although Plaintiff 9, 24, 45, and 46 was unable to use part of the exclusive area of each commercial building because there was a pole in the commercial building Nos. 3026, 1054, and 1144 as above, the area of each of them is not more than 10% of the exclusive area of each of the commercial buildings. In addition, each of the above columns is located in the part of the back corner of the commercial building, where the view is obstructed due to the existence of the pillar, or is not significantly limited to the group of customers and business operators, and where the space is utilized.

(E) On the instant commercial building, there are columns only for some commercial buildings including 1144, 1054, 3020, 3022, and 3026. However, the Defendant did not reduce the sales price or set a separate sales price with regard to the Plaintiff 8, etc. who purchased a commercial building on which the columns exist.

(F) On December 28, 2009, Plaintiff 8, etc. notified the Defendant of the cancellation of each of the above contracts on the ground that the existence of each of the above columns could not achieve the purpose of each of the contracts of this case. The above notification reached the Defendant around that time.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence Nos. 20-2 through 4, Evidence No. 21-4 through 6, Evidence No. 39-1, 2, Evidence No. 40-1, 2, Evidence No. 41-1, 2, Evidence No. 42-1, 2, Evidence No. 48-1, 2, Evidence No. 48-2, Evidence No. 14, Evidence No. 15, Evidence No. 15, the result of the on-site inspection by this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

(3) Whether the sales contract was cancelled

(A) Contracting parties are obligated to take account of the other party and to protect the outcome of performance under the good faith principle. If the other party is expected to receive explanation or notification in light of the legitimate transaction concept, all information deemed important for the other party’s decision-making as part of the incidental obligation under the good faith principle (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2008Da9358, 9365, Aug. 21, 2008). The original purpose of the contract is to: (a) where the contract has already been achieved and only incidental obligation has been fulfilled, the entire contract can not be cancelled in principle; (b) where the creditor is unable to achieve the contract due to the nonperformance or where there is a special agreement, the entire contract can be rescinded (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 68Da1808, Nov. 5, 196; 92Da795, Jun. 23, 192).

(B) As seen earlier, Plaintiff 28’s 3020 commercial buildings and 3022 commercial buildings sold in lots by Plaintiff 8 have a considerable obstacle to their operation due to the existence of the columns. In other words, in 3020 commercial buildings sold by Plaintiff 28, the columns are part of the front corner, and due to the columns, Plaintiff 28’s 11.05% of the exclusive area of 4.122 square meters as well as the 3022 commercial buildings sold by Plaintiff 8 and the 3022 commercial buildings sold by Plaintiff 8 should have a considerable limit to the front corner and the front line. The part that Plaintiff 8 could not use the exclusive area of the above commercial buildings should be limited to KRW 3.780 square meters as well as to the extent that Plaintiff 8’s 9.67% of the exclusive area of 3.780 square meters as well as to the portion that Plaintiff 8’s 3022 commercial buildings could not use the exclusive area of the above commercial building.

In full view of the fact that there are such columns in the commercial building No. 3020 and the commercial building No. 3022 that Plaintiff 28 purchased in lots, and the location and size of the columns located in the commercial building No. 3022 that Plaintiff 8 purchased in lots, and each of the above columns causes significant restrictions to customers and business owners, etc., the fact that there are such columns in the commercial building No. 3020 and the commercial building No. 3022 has a choice of internal columns within the commercial building can be considered to have a significant impact on the conclusion of the sales contract, and the defendant, as a seller, has a duty to provide accurate and sufficient information to the buyers in the process of concluding the contract and explain them at an appropriate time.

However, the Defendant did not accurately explain or notify the Plaintiff 8 and 28 on this matter, and accordingly, Plaintiff 8 and 28 concluded a sales contract without proper knowledge of the location and size of the columns located in the commercial buildings of 3020 and 30222, and each of the above columns brought about serious restrictions on the company line with the customer and the customer. Accordingly, Plaintiff 8 and 28 cannot achieve the original purpose of the sales contract planned through the initial sales contract. Accordingly, the sales contract for the commercial buildings of 3020 can be rescinded on this ground.

On the other hand, in addition to the above commercial buildings, Plaintiff 28 was sold in lots, but there is no such pillar in 2010-1 commercial buildings, and the sales contract for the above two commercial buildings cannot be deemed as being indivisible, and there is no circumstance to deem that the sales contract for the commercial buildings was not purchased in 2010-1 commercial buildings. Thus, Plaintiff 28 can only cancel the sales contract for the commercial buildings 2010 and cannot cancel the sales contract for the commercial buildings 2010-1 commercial buildings.

Therefore, the sales contract concluded by the plaintiff 8 with the defendant and the sales contract concluded by the plaintiff 28 with the commercial building 3020 are deemed to have been legally rescinded according to the above plaintiffs' cancellation notice.

(C) As seen earlier, there exists columns for the commercial buildings in which Plaintiff 24, 9, 45, and 46 were sold in lots, 3026, 1054, and 1144. However, in light of the location and area of each of the above columns, it cannot be said that each of the above columns has prevented the view of view or brought a serious restriction on the screen line with customers and managers. Therefore, the existence of each of the above columns cannot be deemed that the original purpose of the contract that Plaintiff 24, 9, 45, and 46 tried to achieve through a sales contract with the Defendant cannot be deemed to have been achieved. The claim for the above part by Plaintiffs 24, 9, 45, and 46 is without merit.

(4) The effects of the cancellation of the sales contract by the Plaintiff 8 and 28

(A) The Defendant is obligated to return KRW 42,526,450 paid by the said Plaintiff to Plaintiff 8 for the commercial buildings of 3022, and KRW 54,64,400 paid by the said Plaintiff for Plaintiff 28 (in the case of Plaintiff 28, only the sales contract for Plaintiff 3020 was rescinded, and the sales contract for Plaintiff 3020-1 remains effective) as a result of the performance of the duty to restore the sales price for the commercial buildings of 3020.

(B) According to Article 11(3) of the instant sales contract, where the instant sales contract is cancelled on the grounds of either of the Defendant or the Plaintiffs, the party liable for the cancellation of the contract shall pay the other party an amount equivalent to the down payment as penalty. However, the Plaintiff 8 and 28 and the Defendant’s sales contract were cancelled on the grounds of liability as seen earlier, as seen earlier. Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is liable to pay the amount equivalent to each of the down payment to Plaintiff 8

Meanwhile, since the agreement of penalty under Article 11(3) of the sales contract of this case ought to be deemed as an estimate of damages, where the amount is unreasonably excessive pursuant to Article 398(2) of the Civil Act, the court may reduce the amount ex officio, even if there is no assertion by the parties (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da38637, Jul. 28, 2000, etc.).

In this case, if Plaintiff 8 and 28 paid more attention than 30% at the time of the conclusion of the contract for sale in lots, it appears that the existence or location of the columns indicated in the design drawing might have been identified and the question might have been raised. Considering all the circumstances such as the developments leading up to the conclusion of each contract for sale in this case, transaction practices, Plaintiff 8 and 28 refund of all the sales prices already paid due to the cancellation of the contract for sale in this case, equity with other buyers, etc., it is reasonable to determine that the penalty equivalent to the liquidated damages for Plaintiff 8 and 28 is unduly excessive, and it is reasonable to determine that the amount of damages for Plaintiff 8 and 28 was reduced to 30% of the contract deposit, thereby reducing the amount of damages for the Plaintiff 8 and 28 to 5,257,935 won (17,526,450 won x 30% of the contract deposit).

(5) Sub-committee

Therefore, the defendant has a duty to pay to the plaintiff 8 60,108,840 won (5,64,450 won + damages 5,257,935 won + damages 5,257,935 won), 60,108,840 won (damage 54,64,400 won + damages 5,464,440 won + damages 5,440 won) as to each of the above amounts from November 4, 2009 to May 26, 2010, which is clearly recorded that the delivery date of a copy of the application for modification of the purport of the claim of this case from November 5, 2009 to May 26, 2010, the defendant has a duty to pay damages for delay at the rate of 20% per annum as prescribed by the Commercial Act, since it is reasonable that the defendant has a dispute over the existence and scope of the obligation to perform this case from November 5, 2009 to the date of payment.

D. Judgment on the plaintiff 4's claim for cancellation of the sales contract

(1) Plaintiff 4’s assertion

Plaintiff 4 heard the explanation that the four-day store can be located in the commercial building No. 3004-3, and concluded a sales contract on the commercial building. However, the commercial building No. 3004-2, and the commercial building No. 3004-4, which are located on the left side and right side of the commercial building, are leased to the pandeception, and Plaintiff 4 was unable to use the commercial building No. 3004-3 for any purpose other than the pandeception. Accordingly, Plaintiff 4 could not achieve the purpose of the sales contract, and thus, the sales contract of this case was cancelled on this ground. Accordingly, the Defendant must return the sales price and interest in arrears to Plaintiff 4 due to the cancellation of the contract.

(2) Determination

In full view of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 50 and the purport of the whole argument as a result of the on-site inspection of this court, the fact that plaintiff Nos. 50 and 3004-3 had commercial buildings sold by plaintiff Nos. 4 and the same panty panty panty gate on the left side and right side

However, in light of the fact that there is no content on the “voluntary type of business” column of the contract for sale in lots (No. 9-4) prepared between the Plaintiff 4 and the Defendant, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant agreed to allow the Plaintiff 4 and the Defendant to operate the four-day store in the commercial building No. 3004-3, and that such content was the content of the contract for sale in lots. In addition, the Defendant cannot be deemed to bear the obligation to sell in lots or lease the commercial building located on the left side and right side of the commercial building No. 3004-3 by designating the type of business or use. The Plaintiff 4’s assertion claiming the cancellation of the contract for sale in lots

3. Whether a contract for sale in lots is cancelled on the grounds of a fraud or an error of motive induced;

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

In the process of entering into each of the instant sales contracts, the Defendant entered into each of the instant sales contracts by deceiving the Plaintiffs as to the creation of indoor performance halls as described below (5) and entering into each of the instant sales contracts by mistake in the key parts of each of the instant sales contracts. The Defendant shall refund the sales price and damages for delay thereof to the Plaintiffs (i.e., the sales contract between Plaintiff 8 and the Defendant and the sales contract between Plaintiff 28 and the Defendant, as seen earlier, and the sales contract between Plaintiff 3020 on commercial buildings was cancelled, and thus, there is no need to determine the revocation of the aforementioned assertion, but all of the Plaintiffs’ assertions revocation of each of the instant sales contracts under convenience).

B. Determination

(1) In general, in cases where specific facts about important matters in the advertisement of goods have been falsely notified in a manner to the extent that they would be subject to criticism in light of the duty of good faith, the act of deception may be deemed to fall under the said act of deception. However, in cases where there is a mistake in the important matters of a juristic act, the expression of intent may be cancelled, and where there is an error in the expression of intent, it may be cancelled only when the parties concerned have expressed their motive as the contents of the declaration of intent, and if there is an error in the motive of a juristic act, the mistake in the expression of intent shall be deemed to have been important to the extent that the expression of intent would not have been made without such a mistake, and such an expression of intent shall not be deemed to have been made in the place where the general person had expressed his/her intent in accordance with the general commercial practices and the good faith principle (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da55601, May 29, 2001).

(2) Determination as to the assertion regarding the salesroom occupants of overseas famous brands

As seen earlier, it is recognized that the Defendant engaged in publicity and advertising in the first and second floors of the instant commercial building as if the number of overseas brands 80 salesrooms was determined, under the condition that the Defendant entered into a IMSS agreement with the franchise store and planned to sell overseas brand stores in the instant commercial building.

① However, the Defendant, in fact, entered into and promoted a franchise agreement and a product supply contract with IMMs to be supplied with overseas-registered brand products. However, after entering into each of the instant sales contracts, there was no plan to attract overseas-registered brand stores due to the closure of IMMs. ② The Defendant continuously advertised for sale from the beginning, while the Defendant entered into a sales contract with IMMs for the sales of overseas-registered brand stores, as seen above, sold a sales advertisement after entering into a franchise agreement and a product supply contract with IMMs. ③ In addition, in light of the location and size of the instant commercial building, distribution status of the instant commercial building, current status of distribution of nearby commercial buildings, customer floor, and the Defendant’s advertising and advertising area that the store located overseas-registered brand as to the sales of the instant commercial building, even if the foreign-registered brand store continued to operate the instant commercial building, it may not be readily concluded that the Plaintiff, including the Plaintiffs, could contribute to the activation of the sales contract.

Considering such various circumstances, even if the Defendant used an exaggerated expression as if the 1 and 2nd floor of the instant commercial building had been located in a plan to sell overseas-name brand stores in the instant commercial building, it cannot be deemed as a deception exceeding the socially acceptable level by notifying the specific facts of the transaction in a way to the extent that it would be subject to criticism in light of the duty of good faith, even if the Defendant used an exaggerated expression as if the 80 overseas-name brand was located in the first and second floor of the instant commercial building.

Furthermore, when entering into each of the sales contracts of this case as buyers including the plaintiffs, it seems that they expected that they would be favorable to the business by securing the exclusive customer if they occupy a foreign-use brand store in the commercial building of this case. However, such expectation is merely an error of motive, and it cannot be deemed that the plaintiffs caused an error as to the important part of the contract. Therefore, the plaintiffs' assertion on cancellation of this part is without merit.

(3) Determination as to the assertion regarding the commitment to guarantee rental proceeds and the substitution of intermediate payments

As seen earlier, publicity and advertisement that guarantee a certain rate of rent when the commercial building in this case is sold in lots, and that the above publicity and advertisement is somewhat exaggerated. However, the defendant's investment explanation on the profit rate, etc. is nothing more than presenting a kind of prospect or prospect, and it does not seem to constitute deception beyond the socially acceptable level by notifying the specific facts about important transaction in a false manner in light of the duty of good faith.

In addition, it is recognized that the Defendant or the employees of the sales agency agreed that the Plaintiffs would substitute the intermediate payment to be paid by the Plaintiffs in the first or second intermediate payment to some of the Plaintiffs at the time of each sales contract of this case. However, this may be expected to a certain extent that the sales agency may not guarantee the lease as explained by the Defendant or its employees, as the premise that all of the commercial buildings of this case is normally sold and the formation of a business district is made properly. However, the part of the sales agency of this case, including the Plaintiffs, which purchased commercial buildings, may not be guaranteed as if they were explained by the employees of the sales agency. In the event of the sale of commercial buildings, the investors are always prepared to follow the investment risk. As such, the investors are always preparing for the sale of commercial buildings, under their own responsibility and determination, to what extent the lease contract of the commercial buildings of this case is to be made by predicting the extent of the lease contract of this case (see Supreme Court Decisions 9Da501, 5618, May 29, 2001; 2008Da79709.

Considering these circumstances, as long as the contents of the sales advertisement regarding the substitution of intermediate payments may have a big impact on the conclusion of the sales contract, it cannot be deemed as an important part of the sales contract, and it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiffs trusted the above explanation or solicitation of the Defendant or the employees of the sales agency and thereby concluded each sales contract in this case. Therefore, the Plaintiffs cannot cancel each of the sales contracts in this case on the grounds of deception or mistake.

(4) Determination as to the assertion regarding the remainder loan agreement

Even if the plaintiffs cannot obtain a loan of the balance equivalent to 40% of the sale price from a new bank as the content of the sale advertisement, and the possibility of the loan of the sale price was based on the sale contract, as seen earlier, the circumstance where the lending of the balance from the new bank is not possible as long as the above amount was already borrowed from the Korean bank Jung-gu branch, does not constitute an important part of the sale contract as long as the situation where the lending of the balance from the new bank would have a significant impact on the conclusion of the sale contract, and it is difficult to view that the plaintiffs believe such explanation or solicitation as above and concluded each sale contract in this case because they were reliance on the above explanation or solicitation by the defendant or the officers of the sale agency. Accordingly, the plaintiffs cannot cancel each sale

(5) Determination on the assertion regarding the establishment of indoor performance halls

(A) Although the design drawings of the second floor of the commercial building of this case had been scheduled as a space for indoor performance halls, the fact that approximately 10 individual commercial buildings were changed to about 10 individual commercial buildings through design changes is as seen earlier.

(B) However, even if the Defendant planned to establish an indoor performance hall in the commercial building of this case, as seen earlier, insofar as it was modified through a design modification, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant deceivings the Plaintiffs regarding the establishment of an indoor performance hall.

In addition, in light of the size and location of the space planned as an indoor performance hall, it is difficult to deem that the indoor performance hall is established in the commercial building of this case, and thus, it is favorable to secure a large number of customers and business, or significantly increases the value of each commercial building of this case. It appears that the Plaintiffs could have anticipated that matters such as the establishment of an indoor performance hall may change somewhat. Considering these circumstances, it is difficult for the Plaintiffs to believe that the establishment of an indoor performance hall in the commercial building of this case is the establishment of the indoor performance hall in this case and to conclude each sales contract of this case. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs cannot cancel each sales contract of this case on the above grounds.

4. Whether the plaintiff 53 et al. suffered damages due to the tort exists

A. The plaintiff (Appointed)'s conjunctive claim 53

In the process of entering into each of the sales contracts in this case, the Defendant did not provide the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) with accurate and adequate information about the circumstances that may seriously affect the conclusion of the sales contract as above, as to the agreement to substitute the intermediate payment with (a) overseas brand salesroom occupants, (b) agreement to guarantee rental profit and security deposit, (c) agreement to lend interest-free loan to the remainder, (d) agreement to the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the creation of indoor performance hall (b) agreement to create an indoor performance hall, etc. as described in the above 2.A. (1) and 3.A. as described in the above 2.A. (1) through the sales contract in this case. The Plaintiff (Appointed Party) suffered damages by entering into the sales contract. Accordingly, the Defendant is obligated to pay damages to the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) 53 et al. for property damage compensation of the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) 53 et al.

B. Determination

(1) Occurrence of damages liability

The defendant, as an incidental contractual obligation to the buyers in the process of concluding a contract, has a duty to provide them with accurate and sufficient information and explain about the circumstances that may seriously affect the conclusion of the contract, such as the structure, material, form, and location of the commercial building subject to parcelling-out as well as the amount and payment method of the parcelling-out price, loan of the parcelling-out price, and lease of the commercial building.

① However, under the contract and product supply contract with IMMMs, the Defendant exaggeratedly advertised and advertised the 1 and 2nd floor of the instant commercial building as if the saleroom occupants of overseas well-known brand 80 salesrooms became final and conclusive. ② Even though it can be sufficiently anticipated that the lease situation may vary depending on the real estate market trend, the Defendant or employees of the sales shop agreed to guarantee a certain rate of rent in the instant commercial building. At the time of each of the instant sales contract, the Defendant or employees of the sales shop agreed that “The Plaintiffs would substitute the intermediate payment or the second intermediate payment that they would pay from the lessee.” ③ As to the change of design, the Defendant did not provide the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) with information necessary for the sales contract to the Plaintiff 53 et al., or did not perform their duty of compensation for damages arising from the tort (the Defendant did not perform its duty of compensation for damages arising from breach of the contract).

(2) Determination of damages

Where it is difficult to prove the specific amount of damage in a claim for damages caused by a tort in light of the nature of the case, even though the existence of property damage is recognized, the court may determine the amount of damage by taking into account all relevant indirect facts, such as the relationship between the parties revealed by the result of examination of evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings, the background leading up to the tort and the occurrence of property damage caused thereby, the nature of the damage, and all the circumstances after the occurrence of the damage (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da218

The Defendant’s property damages incurred by the Plaintiff (Appointeds) 53 due to the above tort may be the amount equivalent to the interest that the Plaintiff (Appointeds) would bear by borrowing the amount equivalent to the deposit price from the Plaintiff (Appointeds) to the amount equivalent to the deposit price due to the Defendant’s failure to substitute the second intermediate payment as the deposit deposit, and the amount equivalent to the lease profit accrued from the sale in lots that the Defendant would initially guarantee.

However, in light of the current state of the instant commercial building and the trend of real estate market, etc., the deposit that the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) may receive when the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) leased 1003-1 commercial buildings and 1003-2 commercial buildings as of the date of the closing of argument in the instant case, it appears that the amount of damages for the property of the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) 53, etc. is lower than the amount of KRW 38,547,60, respectively, corresponding to the secondary intermediate payment. Considering the circumstances indicated in the instant argument, such as the Defendant’s Boh behavior during the process of concluding the sales contract, the amount of damages for the property of the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) 53, etc. is equivalent to KRW 385,476,00 (192,738,000 + KRW 192,738,000) 】 108,547,600 (3605,700,000 won) 】 36305,13630-1,1360.

(3) Sub-decisions

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay at each rate of 6% per annum under the Commercial Act and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the date of full payment, as requested by the plaintiff (Appointed party) 53 with respect to each of the above amounts of KRW 28,910,70 and KRW 9,636,90, and each of the above amounts.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the claims of plaintiffs 28, 8, and 53 (Appointeds) are accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims of the plaintiffs and the remaining claims of plaintiffs 28, 8, and 53 (Appointeds) are dismissed as they are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment 1] List of Selections: omitted

[Attachment 2] List of Plaintiffs: omitted

[Attachment 3] List of Claim Amount: omitted

Judges Jeon Jong-tae (Presiding Judge)