beta
Text
1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.
The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 357,648,397 and KRW 125,182,00.
Reasons
The reasons why the court should explain this part of the underlying facts are as follows.
With the exception of adding the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, it is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance.
In the process of the lawsuit concerned, 700 buyers of the apartment of this case filed a lawsuit claiming compensation for damages against the plaintiff, asserting that the sales contract was cancelled primarily due to lack of infrastructure, etc. of the apartment of this case, and sought restitution of the sale price as its original state. In the preliminary case, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming compensation for damages by asserting that the plaintiff had made a false or exaggerated advertisement as if he had been aware that the development project, such as the construction of the third-party landing bridge, was not implemented in accordance with
[Attachment District Court 201Mo20689, 2012Gahap7287, 2012Gahap18126, 2012Gahap1266, 2012Gahap1249, hereinafter “related litigation”). The first instance court dismissed all of the main claims and accepted part of the conjunctive claim on the ground that the Plaintiff’s sales advertisement of the third year landing bridge constitutes false or exaggerated advertisements as stipulated in Article 3(1) of the Act on Fair Labeling and Advertising.
In addition, in determining the same purport, the appellate court recognized the amount of damages suffered by the buyers as equivalent to 5% of the relevant parcelling-out price (Seoul High Court 2013Na23688, 2013Na23695, 2013Na23701, 2013Na23718, 2018, 201). Both appeals filed by both parties were dismissed on May 28, 2015.
[Supreme Court Decision 2014Da57228, 2014Da57235, 2014Da57242, 2014Da57242, and 2014Da57259, etc.] The scope of the judgment of this court is as follows: (a) the remainder of the sales price pursuant to the instant sales contract at the first instance court (hereinafter “the part”) and the remainder of the sales price of options pursuant to the instant options construction contract; and (b) the said part is both (a) and (a).