[1] Requirements for false or exaggerated advertisements of goods to constitute deception

[2] The case affirming the judgment of the court below holding that since it is reasonable to view that the employee in charge of parcelling-out who entered into a contract with the seller for parcelling-out stating that "it is difficult to enter into a building on the adjoining land on five or more floors due to problems such as site size, etc." was merely a statement of the above employee's subjective expectation or desire, this cannot be deemed as a case where the seller, who entered into a contract with the seller for parcelling-out, made a false notification to the extent that he would be subject to criticism in light of the duty of good faith in light of the material transaction's duty, and the above employee could not be viewed as a case where the seller, who entered into a contract with the seller for parcelling-out, was not

[3] Requirements for revocation of a legal act on the ground of motive mistake

[4] Requirements for cancellation of the sales contract on the grounds of mistake in the motive that the buyer of a residential complex can secure a certain view and sunshine, and the standard for determining whether the securing of view and sunshine is the content of the sales contract

[5] The case holding that it is difficult to recognize that the number of buyers of the above main complex building should make the object of the sale contract and the contents of the declaration of intention as the object of the sale contract, in light of various circumstances such as the fact that there is no restriction on the height of buildings to secure sunlight, etc. under the Building Act because both the site of the residential complex building and its adjacent land belong to the general commercial district, and that the adjacent land is outside the controlled area of the seller, and that the obstruction of view and sunshine due to the construction of the building on the ground is outside the controlled area of the seller

[1] Article 110 of the Civil Code/ [2] Article 110 of the Civil Code/ [3] Article 109 (1) of the Civil Code/ [4] Article 109 (1) of the Civil Code/ [5] Article 109 (1) of the Civil Code

[1] Supreme Court Decision 99Da55601, 55618 decided May 29, 2001 (Gong2001Ha, 1449), Supreme Court Decision 2008Da56118 decided Nov. 27, 2008 (Gong2008Ha, 1785), Supreme Court Decision 2008Da1842 decided Mar. 16, 2009 (Gong2009Sang, 552) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 97Da26210 decided Sept. 30, 197 (Gong1997Ha, 3286), Supreme Court Decision 97Da4737 decided Feb. 10, 198 (Gong198; Supreme Court Decision 6837 decided Feb. 198; 2005Da52097 decided Feb. 25, 2005)

Plaintiff (Law Firm Chungcheong, Attorneys Quota-tae et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Med Co., Ltd. (Law Firm 002, Attorneys Kim Young-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2009Na61621 decided November 20, 2009

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The assertion of misapprehension of legal principles as to deception

In a case where specific facts about important matters in the advertisement of goods are falsely notified in a manner to the extent to which they can be criticized in light of the duty of good faith in the advertisement of goods, it constitutes a deception. However, the mere exaggeration in the advertisement is accompanied by a false representation in the advertisement is not sufficient to the extent that it can be perceived in light of the general commercial practices and the good faith principle (see Supreme Court Decisions 9Da55601, May 29, 2001; 2008Da1842, Mar. 16, 2009, etc.).

Upon examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the court below recognized that the employee in charge of sale in lots who entered into a contract with the defendant for sale in lots referred to the plaintiff that "it would be difficult to enter into a building on at least five floors on the adjoining land of this case due to problems such as the site area" at the time of entering into the contract for sale in this case, but it is reasonable to view that the contents of the contract are uncertain and the defendant's efforts are not sufficient to make the defendant's efforts, and this is merely a subjective expectation or desire statement of the above employee in charge of sale in lots. Thus, it does not constitute a case where the defendant falsely notifies the specific facts about the important matters of the transaction in this case to the extent that he would be subject to criticism in light of the duty of good faith. The court below determined that the employee in charge of sale in lots could be newly constructed on the adjoining land of this case, but it cannot be viewed as deceiving the plaintiff that it would objectively and objectively know

2. misunderstanding of legal principles as to motive mistake

In order for a purchaser to cancel a legal act on the ground that the motive mistake falls under an error in an important part of the contents of a legal act, it is sufficient to indicate the motive of the purchaser as the content of the contract to the other party and to acknowledge that the content of the contract is the content of the legal act, and it is not necessary to conclude an agreement to separately consider the motive as the content of the contract (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da12259, May 12, 2000). In light of such legal principles, in order to cancel the contract for sale on the ground of an error in the motive that the purchaser of a residential complex building has secured a certain view and sunshine, there is an agreement to secure the view and sunshine as the content of the contract for sale, or there is an agreement that the purchaser should use the view and sunshine as the content of the contract for sale, and whether the purchaser has secured the content of the contract for sale on the basis of the interpretation of the contract for sale, and whether there is an important difference between the parties to the contract for sale and sale in its view.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the records, the plaintiff alleged that there is little difference in the sale price of the main complex building in the same floor, and that the difference in the total sale price is not high. Since both the site of the main complex building and the adjoining land of this case belong to a general commercial district, there is no restriction on the height of buildings to secure sunlight, etc. under the Building Act. The adjoining land of this case is outside the controlled area of the defendant, and the view and sunshine of the main complex building of this case due to the construction of the ground owned by a third party is obstructed. The phrases on the view indicated in the advertising site of this case and the leaflet of this case appear as an abstract expression of the whole of the main complex building of this case, not an expression of a specific direction, but an expression of opinion in the whole of the main complex building of this case. It is difficult to recognize that the defendant's employee in charge stated that "It is difficult to enter the building on the 5th or upper floor of the adjoining land due to problems such as the site area, etc." on the basis of subjective probability, this conclusion that the plaintiff's expression of oral agreement is invalid.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the motive mistake as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. Opinion of misapprehension of legal principles as to cancellation of contract due to change of circumstances

The court below rejected the claim for cancellation of the sales contract due to changes in circumstances on the grounds as stated in its reasoning. In light of the facts and relevant legal principles recognized by the court below, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no violation of

4. Conclusion

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

Justices Cha Han-sung (Presiding Justice)