beta
Text
All appeals are dismissed.
Plaintiff
The application for intervention by the succeeding intervenor shall be dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. Judgment on the grounds of appeal by the Plaintiffs and the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff
A. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning based on the relevant employment evidence, and, on the premise that Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Housing Site Development Promotion Act and Article 2 subparag. 5 of the former Housing Act (amended by Act No. 12959, Dec. 31, 2014; hereinafter “former Housing Act”) of the former Housing Act cannot be deemed as having violated the former Housing Act in calculating the “housing site cost” under Article 38-2(2) of the former Housing Act, on the ground that the Defendant included the assessed amount of the instant coastal land and the annual support cost for building the housing site respectively in the “housing site cost” and “construction cost” under Article 38-2(2) of the former Housing Act and Article 38-2(1) and (2) of the former Housing Act.
In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the fact-finding and determination by the court below are justifiable, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles on “housing site” under the former Housing
B. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, the lower court cited the first instance judgment, and based on its stated reasoning, it unfairly unfavorable for buyers to the instant land as the sales contract clause, including the share in the site of the instant apartment.
It was determined that it is difficult to regard the buyer as an unfair provision of Article 6 (2) of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act because the buyer was unexpected.
In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above fact-finding and determination by the court below are justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical
(c).