[1] The case where false or exaggerated advertisements of goods constitute deception

[2] The meaning of property damage caused by a tort

[3] The need to protect the trust of the general public concerning the structure, size, etc. of apartment buildings constructed and sold by a large enterprise

[1] Articles 110 and 751 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 393 and 763 of the Civil Act / [3] Articles 110 and 751 of the Civil Act

[1] [3] Supreme Court Decision 92Da52665 delivered on August 13, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2417) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 96Da38971 delivered on July 10, 1998 (Gong198Ha, 2054)

Plaintiff 1 and 66 others (Attorney Lee Dong-ho, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant Co., Ltd (Seoul International Law Firm et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Daegu High Court Decision 2006Na5391 Decided May 23, 2007

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against each party.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The defendant's ground of appeal Nos. 1 and 3

The mere exaggeration or falsity in the publicity and advertisement of the product is not sufficient, in light of the general commercial transaction practices and the good faith principle. However, in a case where specific facts about important matters are falsely notified in a manner to the extent of being criticized in light of the good faith duty, it constitutes deception (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da52665 delivered on August 13, 1993).

In full view of the adopted evidence, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its decision, and found the following circumstances. The defendant advertised 43 square meters of the apartment of this case to mislead the buyers of the 43 square meters of the general apartment of this case to increase the exclusive use area of the 43 square meters of the general apartment of this case, which constitutes deception in a case where the defendant falsely notifies the specific facts about important matters in the transaction in a manner to the extent to be criticized in light of the duty of good faith. Therefore, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiffs who purchased the 43 square meters of the apartment of this case because it belongs to the above false advertisement. In light of the above legal principles and records, the above recognition and decision of the court below are just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to deception, misapprehension of legal principles as to causation

2. The plaintiffs' grounds of appeal and the defendant's ground of appeal No. 4

A. Regarding the plaintiffs' grounds of appeal

Property damage caused by an illegal act refers to the difference between the property disadvantage caused by the illegal harmful act, that is, the property condition that would have existed without the illegal act and the current property condition that became the illegal act (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da38971 delivered on July 10, 1998, etc.).

The court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its decision after comprehensively taking account of its adopted evidence, and found tort liability against the defendant's act of false advertising. However, since each apartment of this case's apartment building's invitation announcement and guidance book specifically stipulate the exclusive use area, supply area, contract area, etc. and its exclusive use area consistent with the supply contract, the object of the sales contract of this case's apartment of this case's apartment of this case's apartment is apartment with exclusive use area, etc. as stated in the supply contract. Since the structure and area of each apartment of this case's apartment of this case's supply to the plaintiffs are not only coincide with the apartment supply contract but also the apartment's sales area expected from the advertisement, there is no evidence to prove that the apartment of this case's apartment of this case's price decline, it is difficult to view that the plaintiffs suffered property damage. In light of the above legal principles and records, the above recognition and decision of the court below is just, and there

B. As to the Defendant’s fourth ground of appeal

In the modern industrialization society, most information about the quality, price, etc. of goods owned by consumers is bound to depend on the advertisements of producers and distributors. In particular, regarding matters concerning the structure, area, etc. of apartment buildings constructed and sold by large enterprises such as the defendant, the credibility and expectation of the advertisement contents of the apartment should be protected in such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da52665 delivered on August 13, 1993).

In the same purport, the court below is just in holding that the defendant has a duty to compensate the plaintiffs for mental suffering caused by the defendant's false advertising act, and there is no violation of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to consolation money or violation of precedents.

The Supreme Court precedents cited in the grounds of appeal are different cases and are not appropriate to be invoked in this case.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Nung-hwan (Presiding Justice)