(a) the false or exaggerated advertisement of the product is not a deception;

(b) The case holding that an exaggerated advertisement in the sale of row houses in lots does not constitute deception;

A. Generally accompanied by a somewhat exaggeration or false exaggeration in advertising and advertising of goods is lacking in deception as long as it may be acceptable in light of the general commercial practice and the good faith principle.

B. The case holding that, in light of the overall circumstances such as the method of determining the sale price, the process of conclusion of the sale contract, and the fact that the buyer can easily confirm the supply area in the usual manner in the sale contract or the building management ledger in the sale of a row house, the advertisement cannot be deemed the basis for calculating the sale price between the parties to the transaction, and it is merely limited to the intention to indicate the size of housing subject to sale and to make the sale easily, and it does not constitute a deception in excess of the ordinary level in the sale of a row house, including the service area of the apartment house, on the ground that the advertisement in excess of the usual size, including the service area of the apartment house, was made by falsely notifying the important facts to the extent that it can be criticized in light of the duty of the parties to the transaction in good faith.

Article 110 of the Civil Act, Article 347 of the Criminal Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 91Do2994 delivered on September 14, 1992 (Gong1992, 2929) (Gong1992, 2929) 92Da52665 delivered on August 13, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2417). Supreme Court Decision 91Do788 delivered on June 11, 1991 (Gong191, 1965)

Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant), Attorney Kim Jong-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-Counterclaim defendant)

Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)

Daegu High Court Decision 94Na3583, 3590 decided April 12, 1995

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.

As to the Grounds of Appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the plaintiff's act of purchasing 3 square meters of 3 square meters of 4 square meters of 3 square meters of 3 square meters of 4 square meters of 3 square meters of 4 square meters of 3 square meters of 3 square meters of 4 square meters of 3 square meters of 4 square meters of 3 square meters of 7 square meters of 3 square meters of 4 square meters of 7 square meters of 7 square meters of 3 square meters of 4 square meters of 7 square meters of 7 square meters of 3 square meters of 4 square meters of 7 square meters of 5 square meters of 7 square meters of 3 square meters of 4 square meters of 7 square meters of 5 square meters of 3 square meters of 4 square meters of 7 square meters of 4 square meters of 7 square meters of 7 square meters of 4 square meters of 7 square meters of 4 square meters of 7 square meters of 7 square meters of 1 square meters of 4 square meters of 73 square meters of 4 square meters of m.

However, in general, accompanied by a somewhat exaggerated or false exaggeration in advertising and advertising of the goods, it would lack deception as soon as possible in light of the general commercial practice and good faith principle (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da52665 delivered on August 13, 1993). Accordingly, according to facts and records acknowledged by the court below, the plaintiff stated the accurate supply area in the sales contract and the part of the sales slip. When the defendant entered the sales contract of the loan of this case, he visited the loan of this case in several times with the non-party who is his wife and inspected and confirmed the certificate of completion inspection, the building management ledger, and the copy of the register. The sale price of the loan of this case is not based on the usual price, but on the exclusive use area of the loan of this case, the area of public use, and the share in the site, it can be known that the contract was determined collectively as the object of sale, including the share of the land.

Therefore, even though the plaintiff's advertisement was conducted in a somewhat exaggerated size in selling the loan of this case, in light of all the circumstances, such as the method of determining the sale price as seen above, the process of concluding the sale contract, and the defendant's supply area of the loan of this case can be easily confirmed to be equal to 27.39 by converting the sale price into usual by the above sale contract or the building management ledger, etc., the advertisement of this case cannot be deemed to be the standard for calculating the sale price between the parties to the transaction, but it is nothing more than the intention of expressing the size of the house subject to sale and allowing the sale to be easily made. Thus, the plaintiff's act of advertising the loan of this case to be 33 square meters converted into the usual number including the service area in the transaction of this case, which is significant in the transaction of this case, shall not be viewed to constitute deception beyond the level of common sense which can be socially acceptable by falsely notifying the important facts in a way to the extent of criticism in light of the transaction's duty.

Nevertheless, the court below held that the defendant can lawfully cancel the above sales contract on the ground of the plaintiff's deception on the premise that the above act of the plaintiff's advertisement constitutes a deception shall not be deemed to be erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to deception in the cancellation of a declaration of intent by fraud, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and there is a reason to point this out.

Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)