Plaintiff 2 and 33 others in the Supreme Court Decision

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 11 others (Law Firm Kal, Attorneys Park Ba-hon et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Plaintiff 47 and 1 other

Defendant 2 Co., Ltd. (Attorney Song-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

The Incheon Metropolitan City Mayor (Law Firm Jeong, Attorneys Kim Jin-jin et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

March 21, 2008

Incheon District Court Decision 2005Gahap2215, 5191, 7388 (Consolidated), 15037 (Consolidated) Decided May 19, 2006

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiffs except for plaintiffs 47 and 48 in the judgment of the Supreme Court is modified as follows.

(a) for the plaintiffs 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40, 44, 44, 45;

(1) The amount to be paid by Defendant 2 Co., Ltd. is each stated in the “amount to be paid” in the attached Table 3.

(2) The defendant 2 corporation established jointly with the defendant 2 corporation, with each of the money listed in the above paragraph (1) of the attached Table 3 of the "amount of damage" stated in the "amount of damage".

And with respect to each of the above amounts, 5% per annum from December 15, 2005 to May 2, 2008 and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

B. The Defendants jointly and severally pay to Plaintiff 1, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, 38, and 46 Co., Ltd. 1, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, 38, and 46 the amount calculated by applying the respective 5% per annum from December 15, 2005 to May 2, 2008, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

C. Defendant 2 Co., Ltd.:

(1) The procedure for the registration of the establishment of the right of lease on September 27, 2002, the order of which was preserved by the provisional disposition prohibition registration No. 5781, which was received on December 31, 2004 from the Incheon District Court, Dongcheon District Court, Dongcheon District Court, Incheon with respect to the real estate listed in the separate disposition No. 4 No. 55781, Dec. 31, 2004; and the procedure for the registration of the establishment of the right of lease on September 27, 2002, the order of which was preserved by the provisional disposition prohibition registration No. 55781, Sep. 27, 2002, the amount of KRW 117,462,838, which was preserved by the provisional disposition prohibition registration No. 55781, Dec. 31, 204;

(2) The procedure for the registration of the establishment of the right of lease on the ground of the lease agreement of which the order was preserved on September 5, 2002 by the provisional disposition prohibition registration No. 5781, which was received on December 31, 2004 from the Incheon District Court, Dongcheon District Court, Dongcheon District Court, Dongcheon District Court, 5781 as to the real estate listed in the table No. 3 in the annexed table No. 4 No. 4 as to the lease of which the order was preserved by the provisional disposition prohibition

(3) With respect to the real estate listed in the table Nos. 4 of the Supreme Court decision, the procedure for the registration of the establishment of the right of lease on the ground of the lease that the order was preserved by the provisional disposition No. 5781, Dec. 31, 2004, which was received by the Incheon District Court, Dongcheon-gun, Incheon District Court No. 55781, Dec. 11, 2002; and the registration of the provisional disposition No. 55781, Dec. 31, 2004, which was preserved by the provisional disposition No. 55781, Feb. 11, 2002;

(4) The procedure for the registration of the establishment of the right of lease on the ground of the lease agreement of KRW 275,350,000 on March 27, 2002, the order of which was preserved by the provisional disposition prohibition registration No. 55781, Dec. 31, 2004, which was preserved by the provisional disposition prohibition registration No. 55781, Dec. 31, 2004, with respect to the real estate listed in [Attachment 4] No. 6] in the Supreme Court

(5) The procedure for the registration of the establishment of the right of lease on the ground of the lease agreement of which the order was preserved by the provisional disposition prohibition registration No. 5781, Dec. 31, 2004, which was made on March 24, 2002 with respect to the real estate listed in the No. 7 list No. 4 No. 5 of the Supreme Court Decision 80,960,000 for the lease deposit (prepaid rent) as the lease deposit;

(6) The procedure for the registration of the establishment of the right of lease on April 25, 2002, the order of which was preserved by the provisional disposition prohibition registration No. 5781, which was received on December 31, 2004 from the Incheon District Court, Dongcheon District Court, Dongcheon District Court, Incheon with respect to the real estate listed in the No. 4 List No. 8, the order of which was preserved by the provisional disposition prohibition registration No. 5781, Dec. 31, 2004; and the procedure for the registration of the establishment of the right of lease on April 25, 2002, the amount of KRW 82,424,297, which was preserved by the provisional disposition prohibition registration No. 55781, Dec. 31, 2004;

(7) With respect to the real estate listed in No. 10 in the separate sheet No. 4 No. 5781, Dec. 31, 2004, the Incheon District Court, Dongcheon Registry, Incheon District Court, the registry office of registry office of 55781, the order of which was preserved by the provisional disposition registration of No. 55781, Mar. 27, 2002; and with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 4 No. 11, the Incheon District Court, Dongcheon District Court, Dongcheon Registry of registry office of 5781, Dec. 31, 2004, the order of which was preserved by the provisional disposition registration of No. 55781, Mar. 27, 2002;

(8) The procedure for the registration of the establishment of the right of lease on the ground of the lease agreement of KRW 215,60,000 on November 4, 2003, the priority order of which was preserved by the provisional disposition prohibition registration No. 5781, Dec. 31, 2004, which was preserved by the provisional disposition prohibition registration No. 55781, Dec. 31, 2004, with respect to the real estate listed in No. 12 in the separate list No. 4 No. 12

(9) The procedure for the registration of the establishment of the right of lease on the ground of the lease agreement of KRW 436,70,000 on November 4, 2003, the priority order of which was preserved by the provisional disposition prohibition registration No. 5781, which was received on December 31, 2004 by the Incheon District Court, Dongcheon-dong District Court, Incheon District Court, Dongcheon-si Office, and the provisional disposition No. 5781, Dec. 31, 2004, for the real estate listed in the

(10) The procedure for the registration of the establishment of the right of lease on the ground of the lease agreement of KRW 278,40,340 on March 28, 2002, the priority order of which was preserved by the provisional disposition prohibition registration No. 55781, Dec. 31, 2004, which was received by the Incheon District Court Dongcheon-gu District Court, Dongcheon Office, Incheon, and the provisional disposition No. 55781, Dec. 31, 2004, with respect to the real estate listed in

(11) The procedure for the registration of the establishment of the right of lease on the ground of the lease agreement of which the order was preserved by the provisional disposition prohibition registration No. 5781, Dec. 31, 2004, which was preserved on June 25, 2002, with respect to the real estate listed in [Attachment 44] No. 15] No. 44,700,000 for the real estate in [Attachment 4] No. 15] No. 5 of the Incheon District Court Decision 5781, the

(12) With respect to the real estate listed in the table Nos. 4 No. 16 of the decision of the Supreme Court, the procedure for the registration of the establishment of the right of lease, the priority of which was preserved by the provisional disposition No. 5781, Dec. 31, 2004, which was preserved by the registration of the provisional disposition No. 55781, Mar. 27, 2002; and the Incheon District Court, Dongcheon District Court, Dongcheon Branch of the Incheon District Court on Dec. 31, 2004, the priority of which was preserved by the registration of the provisional disposition No. 55781, Mar. 27, 2002, which was preserved by the registration of the provisional disposition No. 55781, Mar. 27, 2002;

(13) The procedure for the registration of the establishment of the right of lease on April 13, 2002, the order of which was preserved by the provisional disposition prohibition registration No. 5781, which was received on December 31, 2004 from the Incheon District Court, Dongcheon District Court, Dongcheon District Court, Incheon District Court, 5781, and the registration of the establishment of the right of lease on December 31, 2004, the order of which was preserved by the provisional disposition prohibition registration No. 55781, Dec. 31, 2004, with respect to the real estate listed in the separate disposition No. 55781, the order of which was preserved by the registration of provisional disposition No. 5781, Apr. 13, 2002;

(14) The procedure for the registration of the establishment of the right of lease on the ground of the lease agreement with the Plaintiff 13 as the deposit deposit (rent 72,710,000 on April 16, 2002, the priority order of which was preserved by the provisional disposition prohibition registration No. 5781, Dec. 31, 2004, which was received by the Incheon District Court Dongcheon District Court, Dongcheon District Court No. 55781, Dec. 31, 2004;

(15) The procedure for the registration of the establishment of the right of lease on the ground of the lease agreement with the Plaintiff 14 as the deposit deposit (rent 73,150,000 on April 16, 2002, the priority order of which was preserved by the provisional disposition prohibition registration No. 5781, Dec. 31, 2004, which was received by the Incheon District Court Dongcheon District Court, Dongcheon District Court, Dongcheon District Court, 204, as to the real estate listed in No. 21 of the table No.

(16) The procedure for the registration of the establishment of a right of lease on the ground of a lease agreement with the Incheon District Court, Dongcheon District Court, Dongcheon District Court, Dongcheon District Court, 2004, No. 5781, Nov. 1, 2002, the order of which was preserved by the registration of provisional disposition prohibition against disposal of No. 5781, Dec. 31, 2004, and with respect to the real estate listed in the No. 4 No. 55781, Dec. 31, 2004, the Incheon District Court, Dongcheon District Court, Dongcheon District Court, Dongcheon District Court, 5781, Nov. 1, 202, the order of which was preserved by the registration of provisional disposition prohibition against disposal of No. 55781, Dec. 31, 2004;

(17) The procedure for the registration of the establishment of the right of lease on the ground of the lease agreement with the plaintiff 16 of the Supreme Court's decision on December 31, 2004 that the order was preserved by the provisional disposition prohibition registration No. 5781, Jun. 17, 2002, which was preserved by the provisional disposition prohibition registration No. 55781, Dec. 31, 2004, with respect to the real estate listed in No. 24 No. 4 List No. 24, the lease registration procedure

(18) The procedure for the registration of the establishment of the right of lease on the ground of the lease agreement with the plaintiff 17 of the Supreme Court's decision on December 31, 2004 that the order was preserved by the provisional disposition prohibition registration No. 5781, Jun. 17, 2002, which was preserved by the provisional disposition prohibition registration No. 55781, Dec. 31, 2004, with respect to the real estate listed in No. 24 of the table No. 4 No. 5574,

(19) With respect to the real estate listed in the table Nos. 25 of the [Attachment 4] to Plaintiff 18 of the Supreme Court Decision, the procedure for the registration of the establishment of the right of lease on the ground of the lease agreement that the order was preserved by the registration of provisional disposition Nos. 5781, Dec. 31, 2004, which was received by the Dongcheon District Court, Incheon District Court No. 24,472,277, Oct. 28, 2002, and the registration of provisional disposition No. 4 No. 5781, Dec. 31, 2004, the order of which was preserved by the registration of provisional disposition No. 55781, Oct. 28, 2002, which was preserved by the registration of provisional disposition No. 55781, Oct. 28, 2002;

(20) The procedure for the registration of the establishment of the right of lease on the ground of the lease agreement of KRW 80,630,00 on June 30, 2002, the priority order of which was preserved by the provisional disposition prohibition registration No. 55781, Dec. 31, 2004, for the real estate listed in No. 27 of [Attachment 4] No. 19 to Plaintiff 19, the Incheon District Court, Dongcheon District Court, Dongcheon Branch Office, 204, which was preserved by the provisional disposition

(21) The procedure for the registration of the establishment of the right of lease on the ground of the lease agreement of KRW 9,80,000 on April 22, 2002, the priority order of which was preserved by the provisional disposition prohibition registration No. 55781, Dec. 31, 2004, for the real estate listed in No. 28 of [Attachment 4] No. 20 to Plaintiff 20, the Incheon District Court, Dongcheon District Court, Dongcheon Branch Office, 5781, which was the receipt of the order

(22) The procedure for the registration of the establishment of the right of lease on the ground of the lease on April 22, 2002, the priority order of which was preserved by the provisional disposition prohibition registration No. 5781, Dec. 31, 2004, which was preserved by the registration of provisional disposition No. 55781, Dec. 31, 2004, with respect to the real estate listed in No. 29 No. 29 of the [Attachment No. 4] No. 103,620,00

(23) At the same time with the payment of KRW 12,80,023 from Plaintiff 41 to Plaintiff 41, the procedure for the registration of the establishment of the right of lease on the ground of the lease that the lease agreement was made for KRW 59,290,000 on December 11, 2002, the order of which was preserved by the provisional disposal order registration No. 55781, Dec. 31, 2004, with respect to the real estate listed in the No. 30 list No. 41 to Plaintiff 41 of the Supreme Court decision, which was preserved by the provisional disposal registration No. 55781, Dec.

(24) The procedure for the registration of the establishment of the right of lease on the ground of the lease agreement of KRW 141,680,000 as of March 27, 2002, the priority of which was preserved by the provisional disposition prohibition registration No. 55781, Dec. 31, 2004, which was received by the Incheon District Court Dongcheon District Court, Dongcheon District Court, Incheon with respect to the real estate listed in the No. 31 in the table No. 4 No. 31 in the judgment of the Supreme Court, for

(25) With respect to the real estate listed in the table Nos. 32 in the separate sheet Nos. 45 of the Supreme Court Decision, the procedure for the registration of the establishment of the right of lease on the ground of the lease that the order was preserved by the registration of provisional disposition No. 5781, Dec. 31, 2004, which was received by the Incheon District Court, Dongcheon-gu, Incheon District Court No. 45781, Dec. 31, 2004; and the procedure for the registration of the establishment of the right of lease on the ground of the lease that the order was preserved by the registration of provisional disposition No. 5781, Dec. 31, 2004, which was preserved by the registration of provisional disposition No. 55781, May 21, 2002;

(26) The procedure for the registration of the establishment of the right of lease on the ground of the lease agreement of KRW 101,640,000 on October 9, 2002, the priority order of which was preserved by the provisional disposition prohibition registration No. 55781, Dec. 31, 2004, for the real estate listed in the No. 34 of [Attachment 4] No. 34 to Plaintiff 23 of the Supreme Court Decision, the Incheon District Court, Dongcheon District Court, Dongcheon Branch Office, 5781,

(27) The procedure for the registration of the establishment of the right of lease on the ground of the lease agreement that the order was preserved by the provisional disposition prohibition registration No. 5781, Dec. 31, 2004, which was made on March 27, 2002, with respect to the real estate listed in [Attachment 46] No. 35 of [Attachment 4] No. 35] to the Plaintiff 46 corporation on the ground of the lease deposit (prepaid rent).

(28) The procedure for the registration of the establishment of the right of lease on the ground of the lease on October 9, 2002 that the order was preserved by the provisional disposition prohibition registration No. 1995 received on January 17, 2005 with respect to the real estate listed in the No. 36 of [Attachment 4] No. 36 to Plaintiff 24, the Incheon District Court, Dongcheon District Court, Dongcheon District Court, Incheon District Court, the registration of the establishment of the right of lease on the ground of the lease deposit (prepaid rent).

(29) The procedure for the registration of the establishment of the right of lease on the ground of the lease on October 9, 2002 that the order was preserved by the provisional disposition prohibition registration No. 1995, which was made on January 17, 2005, with respect to the real estate listed in No. 37 No. 45 of the [Attachment 4] No. 152,460,000 for the lease to the plaintiff 25 of the Supreme Court's decision;

(30) The procedure for the registration of the establishment of the right of lease on the ground of the lease on April 4, 2002, the priority order of which was preserved by the provisional disposition prohibition registration No. 1995, Jan. 17, 2005, for the real estate listed in No. 39 of [Attachment 4] No. 26, the Incheon District Court, Dongcheon District Court, Dongcheon District Court, Dongcheon District Court, 2005, under which the lease was based on the lease deposit (prepaid rent).

(31) The procedure for the registration of the establishment of the right of lease on the ground of the lease agreement with the plaintiff 27 on June 28, 2002, the priority of which was preserved by the provisional disposition prohibition registration No. 1995, Jan. 17, 2005, which was preserved by the provisional disposition prohibition registration No. 1995, Jan. 17, 2005, for the real estate listed in No. 40 No. 40 in the [Attachment 40] to the plaintiff 27,

(32) The procedure for the registration of the establishment of the right of lease on the ground of the lease agreement with the plaintiff 28 of the Supreme Court's decision made on January 17, 2005 that the order was preserved by the provisional disposition prohibition (No. 117,150,000 won on March 27, 2002, the order of which was preserved by the provisional disposition prohibition registration No. 1995, Jan. 17, 2005, with respect to the real estate listed in the No. 41 of [Attachment

(33) The procedure for the registration of the establishment of the right of lease on the ground of the lease agreement of KRW 117,197,320 on October 21, 2002, the order of which was preserved by the provisional disposition prohibition registration No. 1995, which was received on January 17, 2005 from the Incheon District Court, Dongcheon-gu, Incheon District Court for the real estate No. 42 in the No. 42 attached table No. 42, which was preserved by the provisional disposition prohibition registration on January 21,

(34) The procedure for the registration of the establishment of the right of lease on the ground of the lease agreement with the Plaintiff 30 on the real estate listed in [Attachment 45] No. 45 of the Supreme Court Decision 152,680,000 won which was preserved by the provisional disposition prohibition registration No. 1995, Jan. 17, 2005, whose priority was preserved by the provisional disposition prohibition registration No. 1995, Mar. 23, 2002;

(35) The procedure for the registration of the establishment of the right of lease on April 19, 2002, the order of which was preserved by the provisional disposition prohibition registration No. 1995, which was received on January 17, 2005 from the Incheon District Court, Dongcheon District Court, Dongcheon District Court, Incheon, the registry of Dongcheon District Court, 195, and the registration of the provisional disposition No. 1995, Jan. 17, 2005, the order of which was preserved by the provisional disposition prohibition registration No. 1995, Apr. 19, 202, the amount of KRW 257,486,561 on April 19, 202, which was preserved by the provisional disposition prohibition registration No. 1995;

(36) With respect to real estate listed in [Attachment 48] Nos. 48 of the Supreme Court Decision, the Incheon District Court, Dongcheon District Court, Dongcheon District Court, Dongcheon District Court, 2005, KRW 238,99,334, April 9, 2002, the order of which was preserved by the provisional disposition registration No. 1995, which was received on January 17, 2002, and KRW 93,079,271, KRW 45, KRW 50 on April 9, 2002, the order of which was preserved by the provisional disposition No. 1995, the registration No. 1997, May 15, 2005, the Incheon District Court, the Incheon District Court, Dongcheoncheon 1, 205, KRW 194, the order of which was preserved by the registration No. 1995, Jan. 17, 2005; and the Incheon District Court, the Incheon District Court, the 205194.5.25

(37) With respect to the real estate listed in the table Nos. 52 in the separate sheet Nos. 4 No. 1995, Jan. 17, 2005, for which the order is preserved by the provisional disposition No. 156,611,025 on April 22, 2002, the order of which was preserved by the provisional disposition No. 1995, and with respect to the real estate listed in the separate list No. 4 No. 53, Jan. 17, 2005, the Incheon District Court, Dongcheon-gu, Incheon District Court, 1995, whose order was preserved by the provisional disposition No. 1995, Apr. 22, 2002, the order of which was preserved by the provisional disposition No. 156,31,196, and No. 4 List No. 54, the Incheon District Court, Dongcheon-ro, Incheon District Court, the registration office of No. 1995, Jan. 17, 2007>

(38) The procedure for the registration of the establishment of the right of lease on April 29, 2002 with respect to the real estate listed in [Attachment 4] Nos. 55 to the plaintiff 34 on April 29, 2002, gold 97,031,662 won as of April 29, 200, and gold 161,68,338 won as of April 29, 2002 as the lease deposit (prepaid rent).

(39) The procedure for the registration of the establishment of a right of lease on the ground of a lease agreement with the Plaintiff 35 on May 25, 2002, the amount of KRW 174,841,340 as of the real estate listed in [Attachment 4] No. 57 as of May 25, 202;

(40) The procedure for the registration of the establishment of the right of lease on April 24, 2002 with respect to the real estate listed in [Attachment 4] Nos. 58, 69,934,870 won as of April 24, 202, and 69,65,130 won as of April 24, 2002 as the lease deposit (prepaid rent) as to the real estate listed in [Attachment 4] No. 59 as of April 24, 2002;

(41) The procedure for the registration of the establishment of the right of lease on April 9, 202 with respect to the real estate listed in [Attachment 4] Nos. 64,260,697 won as of April 9, 2002 with respect to the real estate listed in [Attachment 4] No. 61 as of April 9, 200, and the amount of 52,229,303 won as of April 9, 202 as the lease deposit for the lease (prepaid rent).

(42) The procedure for the registration of the establishment of a right of lease on the ground of a lease agreement with the Plaintiff 38 on October 16, 2003, the amount of KRW 95,700,000 as of October 16, 200 for the real estate listed in [Attachment 4] No. 62 in the Supreme Court Decision,

(43) The procedure for the registration of the establishment of a right of lease on the ground of a lease agreement with the Plaintiff 39 on April 30, 2002, the amount of KRW 93,50,000 as of April 30, 202, concerning the real estate listed in [Attachment 4] Nos. 63, 63,

(44) At the same time, the procedure for the registration of the establishment of a right of lease, which is based on a lease agreement with the plaintiff 42 on December 10, 2002 as a deposit for lease deposit (rent 52,80,000 on December 10, 200, with respect to the real estate listed in the No. 64 of the [Attachment 4] list 52,80,000 on December 10, 202

(45) At the same time with the payment of KRW 15,171,825 from Plaintiff 43 to Plaintiff 43, the procedure for the registration of the establishment of the right of lease on the ground of the lease that the lease was based on the lease agreement with Plaintiff 43 on December 10, 2002, 58,520,000 for the real estate listed in [Attachment 4] Nos. 65 to Plaintiff 43;

(46) The procedure for the registration of the establishment of the right of lease on the ground of the lease agreement with the Plaintiff 40 on April 1, 2002, the amount of KRW 177,068,250 as of April 1, 202, concerning the real estate listed in [Attachment 4] No. 66

D. Each performance shall be made.

D. All of the plaintiffs' remaining claims are dismissed.

2. All appeals against plaintiffs 47 and 48 in the Supreme Court decision of defendant 2 corporation are dismissed.

3. The above plaintiffs and the defendants except the plaintiffs 47 and 48 bear 60% of the total litigation costs incurred between the plaintiffs and the defendants, and 40% of the defendants bear 47 and 48 of the Supreme Court's decision and the defendant 2's appeal costs incurred between the plaintiffs 47 and 48, and the defendant 2

4. The provisional execution may be effected in accordance with the first A, and the second B.

Plaintiffs other than Plaintiff 47 and 48 of the Supreme Court’s decision: The part against the above Plaintiffs in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The same shall be as stated in the purport of the claim in the separate sheet No. 5. First, the same shall apply to the entries in the separate sheet No. 6 in the separate sheet No. 2 preliminaryly. 1.

The defendants shall be jointly and severally liable for 47,48: from October 20, 200 to 47 of the Supreme Court's judgment; from 86,90,000 won; from 35,200,000 won; from January 13, 2004 to 200; from 30,200,000 won; from April 10, 2004 to 20,90,000 won; from 20,000 won; from 3.6% per annum until the delivery date of a duplicate of the complaint of this case; from 20,303,000 won per annum; from 20,303,000 won per annum; from 3.0,000 won per annum to 47; from 3.0,000 won per annum; from 48,000 won to 3.20,023 won per annum; from 203,2008 won;

Defendant 2 Co., Ltd.: with respect to the real estate listed in the [Attachment 4] No. 38 of the Supreme Court Decision, the procedure for the registration of the establishment of the right of lease on October 19, 2003 where the order was preserved by the registration of provisional disposition No. 1995, Jan. 17, 2005, for the lease of KRW 86,90,000, which was preserved by the registration of provisional disposition No. 1995, Oct. 19, 203; with respect to the real estate listed in the [Attachment 43] No. 48 of the Supreme Court Decision, Dongcheon District Court No. 1995, Jan. 17, 2005, which was preserved by the registration of provisional disposition No. 1995, Apr. 17, 2002; the procedure for the registration of the establishment of the right of lease of KRW 62,810,00,000 for the real estate listed in the annexed 4444, Incheon District Court.

Defendant 2 Co., Ltd.: Revocation of the part against Defendant 2 Co., Ltd. among the judgment of the first instance court. All the plaintiffs' claims corresponding to the above revocation are dismissed

1. Facts of recognition;

This Court’s instructions concerning this part are the same as the corresponding part, except where the amount “9,570,000” against Plaintiff 43 of the 15th judgment of the Supreme Court on the “15th judgment” is “5,520,000” in the “15th judgment of the court of first instance. Therefore, this Court shall accept it in accordance with Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination as to the assertion of joint tort, which is the primary cause of the claim (a simple combination of plaintiffs 47 and 48 in the Supreme Court Decision)

A. Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

(1) Defendant 2: (a) although the Incheon Metropolitan City Mayor (hereinafter “Defendant Airport Corporation”) did not have been promised to establish a flight experience facility and a observation unit in the instant commercial facilities and to establish a Pms (People Myms, Mosday) via the instant commercial facilities, Defendant 2 conspireds the Plaintiffs by publicizing as if the aviation experience facility and a prospect unit and Pms are finalized in order to acquire a large amount of rent; (b) by deceiving the Plaintiffs, when sublet each of the stores of the instant commercial facilities, each of the stores of the instant commercial facilities would be 16% revenues per annum, the Defendant 2 could be responsible for sublet and would be responsible for subleting; and (c) by deceiving the Plaintiffs by falsely presenting a financing plan of 63 billion won at the time of applying for the approval of the implementation plan.

(2) In addition, Defendant Airport Corporation has the status of supervisory authority over Defendant 2 corporation in accordance with the Seoul Metropolitan Area New Airport Construction Promotion Act and the Incheon International Airport Business Commercial Area Commercial Facility Sales Agreement, and accordingly, the Defendant Airport Corporation should prevent Defendant 2’s deception. However, around the end of 2002, Defendant Airport Corporation established a notice stating that “this area will transport passengers between the transportation center and the international business complex by the Pms platform. The facility will be completed at the next second stage of construction. The Incheon International Airport Traffic Control Center will be completed.” Defendant 2 corporation installed a notice stating that “The Incheon International Airport Traffic Control Center will be completed at the next second stage of construction.” Defendant 2 corporation installed photographs taken therefrom and large-scale sculptures on which the Pms are installed at the sales office, and explained the above contents at the time of conclusion of

(3) The plaintiffs alleged that they suffered damages by acquiring the amount equivalent to the rents that they concluded and paid each of the instant lease agreements due to the Defendants' joint tort caused by the said deception by Defendant 2 and the negligence of supervising or aiding and abetting Defendant Airport Corporation. They seek payment of the amount equivalent to the rents that were paid as compensation for damages by holding the Defendants liable for joint tort under Article 760 of the Civil Act.

B. Determination

(1) Occurrence of damages liability

Although it was not confirmed to install a PE via the commercial facilities of this case, it is examined as to whether the act of Defendant 2, who promoted and advertised such act, and the act of aiding and abetting the act constitutes a tort.

The following facts are not disputed between the parties or may be acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the following facts: Gap evidence 51, 52, 55, Gap evidence 56-1, 2, 57, Gap evidence 58-1 through 4, Gap evidence 64-1, 2, Eul evidence 81 through 86, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 3, 4, and 5; the results of the on-site verification of the first instance court and the parties; the inquiry of the fact to the Minister of Construction and Transportation (competent to the Seoul Regional Aviation Office) of the first instance court (competent to the Ministry of Construction and Transportation); the testimony of non-party 1 and 2 of the witness non-party 1 and the witness of the party.

① The content of the scheduled area for new airport construction and the basic plan for new airport construction in June 16, 1992, publicly notified by the Ministry of Construction and Transportation as prescribed by Article 1992-16, does not include the fact that a Pms is to be installed within an international business area. The subsequent revision of the basic plan for new international airport construction in the Seoul metropolitan area (the first stage business plan) that was amended by the Ministry of Construction and Transportation No. 1995-387 on November 28, 1995, the amendment of the basic plan for Incheon International Airport construction (the first stage business) that was amended by the Ministry of Construction and Transportation No. 1998-236 on July 22, 1998, the amendment to the basic plan for the Incheon International Airport construction (the second stage business) that was amended by the Ministry of Construction and Transportation No. 2001-356 on December 31, 201, also does not include the content of the P

② At the Incheon International Airport Traffic Center Construction Site I published at the early January 2002, the Defendant Airport Corporation introduced a facility plan, such as the establishment of PPPPs and the platform for such establishment, vehicle, and passenger demand calculation, in order to operate an international service area with an airport traffic center, etc., and indicated as the article on December 12, 2003 of the Incheon Incheon Daily newsletter, December 18, 2003, and December 19, 2003, that “PPPs, a light metal, shall be developed from October of each year for the convenience of transportation in separated areas between the Incheon Airport and the international service area.”

③ In addition, in the concession agreement prepared by the Defendants in entering into a project concession agreement for the instant commercial facilities around October 2001, the Defendants stated that “the installation cost shall be excluded from the total amount of private investment on the project plan, and the installation cost shall be jointly borne by the relevant project implementer on the basis of the consultation with the project implementer,” and the said provision related to the PPS connecting construction continued to be maintained even after the amendment of the said concession agreement by no later than four times until July 22, 2003.

④ On the other hand, “the comprehensive report on the plan for the placement of facilities on the south side of the Incheon International Airport passenger terminal” prepared on May 1996 is as follows: “The more systematic review is required for the establishment and operation of the PPP and the result of the “detailed placement plan” related to the south side of the passenger terminal.

⑤ On July 27, 2001, the Defendant Airport Corporation, etc. prepared a detailed review on the design standards, route plans, vehicle bases, stations, bus stops, bus systems, etc. in relation to PPP facilities, and conducted research and reports on the users, required vehicles, etc. by dividing the stages from 2005 to 2020.

6) After that, in the “final Report on the Master Plan for the Development of Undeveloped International Airport” prepared by the Defendant Airport Corporation on December 2004, the Defendant Airport Corporation recognized the need to review the installation of Pms in a long term to resolve traffic burden issues in the international business area. However, there is no plan to install it within a short period due to lack of demand and economic feasibility, and it is a plan to review and reflect it after 2020, which is completed the development of the international business area.

7) Within the Incheon International Airport Traffic Control Center, a Pms platform has already been installed, and around the end of 2002, Defendant Airport Corporation had attached a notice to “The Pms platform in this area will transport passengers between the traffic center and the international business complex. The facility will be completed at the time of the next second stage construction,” and the above second stage construction period from 2002 to 2008.

8) Defendant 2: (a) kept in a sales office a photograph of the aforementioned PPS platform and its front notice; and (b) a large-scale sculpture in an international business area made through the instant commercial facilities installed; (c) explained the aforementioned contents to the lessee of the instant commercial facilities including the Plaintiffs at the time of concluding a lease agreement; and (d) the Defendant Airport Corporation was well aware of the aforementioned circumstances.

9) Although the PE connection point was prepared for the commercial facilities of this case, the Defendant Airport Corporation does not, even until now, install a PE method connecting the Incheon International Airport Traffic Control Center with the international business zone. If the future traffic demand is secured, it is planned to prepare a budget with the Defendant Airport Corporation, Incheon Metropolitan City, and the National Treasury to build a PE method of self-injury train, but no specific schedule has been established.

However, the Defendants, upon entering into a concession agreement with respect to this commercial facility, completed this facility within the construction period based on the business plan to be submitted by the project implementer and the implementation plan to be submitted in the future, and agreed to faithfully observe and implement the agreement with each other in order to ensure that it conforms to the operation of the Incheon State supply port, and to maintain, manage, and repair the facility so that it can always function at all times in accordance with the purpose of the facility by the date on which the period of facility ownership expires, and to ensure that it does not cause a bona fide victim during the operation of the facility and that it performs its role as an efficient management and airport facility.

On the other hand, in the case of the commercial facility lease contract of this case, the lessor is obligated under the principle of good faith to notify and explain the circumstances that may have a significant impact on the decision-making, such as the formation and realization of the lease contract, to the lessee in the process of concluding the contract. Thus, if the Pms, which is a transportation system that can increase the market value of the commercial facility of this case, is not installed up to now or is not constructed any stage, it is expected that the general person with common attention would have the leased the commercial facility of this case, or at least would have tried not to lease the commercial facility of this case at least 1 km away from the Incheon International Airport or to not lease the commercial facility of this case at the same price as the rental fee of this case, the lessor, as the lessee, included the Pms installation in the basic plan for the Incheon International Airport Construction before advertising, whether the details of the Pms installation project of the Pms installation of the Pms installation of the above basic plan is included in the contents of the Pms installation of the Pms installation, and to the maximum extent possible.

However, Defendant 2’s offering of false information to the Plaintiffs at the negotiation stage of the instant lease agreement without specifically notifying or explaining the accuracy and sufficient information about the PMS installation as above does not intend to accurately verify whether it is possible to complete the PMS construction. It violates the duty of disclosure or duty of explanation under the good faith principle as to important circumstances that may affect lessee’s decision-making by going beyond ordinary propaganda and business activities, thereby violating the duty of disclosure or duty of explanation under the same principle. It is not only liable for tort under the Civil Act, but also does not include the content on the 2nd stage project of Incheon International Airport Construction (2nd 2002 to 208) basic plan as announced on December 31, 2001. As such, Defendant 2’s offering of false information that the aforementioned public notice prior to publicity and advertisement to lessees or that it would not be objectively permitted by Defendant 2’s offering of such information to tenants for the long-term reason that it would not have been able to know that it would have been objectively or indirectly permitted by Defendant 1’s act of completion of the PP construction by 2008.

In addition, as Defendant Airport Corporation established for the purpose of efficient management, operation, etc. of the Incheon International Business Complex, including the International Business Complex in which the commercial facilities of this case are located, concluded a concession agreement on the operation, etc. of the commercial facilities of this case with Defendant 2 Co., Ltd. by providing the land for the commercial facilities of this case to Defendant 2 Co., Ltd. and promising to faithfully comply with and implement the agreement according to mutual faith so that bona fide victims do not occur in connection with the operation of the commercial facilities of this case. Defendant 2 Co., Ltd. is obligated under the good faith principle, such as notifying Defendant 2 Co., Ltd or the plaintiffs of accurate and sufficient information about the PP facilities via the commercial facilities of this case. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that Defendant 2 violated the duty under the good faith principle by guiding or inducing the lease of Defendant 2 Co., Ltd. using such information as if the PP is to be installed within the two-stage period without a finalized plan

However, with respect to the fact that the airline experience facilities and observation units in the commercial facilities of this case are installed, 16% per annum is secured, and 63 billion won is falsely presented, the fact that certain facilities and stores will come into a commercial building is a premise for determining the profitability of the commercial building, and the matters such as how to operate, how to profit, and how to profit will ultimately be determined by the responsibility and judgment of the plaintiffs who are investors, and that the implementation of the financing plan of the defendant 2 company cannot be a harmful act against the plaintiffs, this part of the claim for tort is rejected.

In addition, it is impossible for a business operator to prohibit any exaggeration in advertising his/her goods in reality. Therefore, the minor exaggeration that can be socially acceptable in light of the general commercial practice and the good faith principle does not constitute an exaggerated advertisement that constitutes a tort. However, in light of the general commercial practice and the good faith principle, a propaganda or advertisement that contains any exaggeration or false beyond the limit that can be socially acceptable in light of the general commercial transaction practice and the good faith principle, it is not legally permissible, but it does not constitute deception that is a ground for cancellation of the declaration of intent at all times because there is any exaggeration or false fact that is legally not legally permissible, and if the degree of its exaggeration or falseness and importance, the degree of liability for such propaganda or advertisement is serious, it may be recognized as a ground for cancellation of the declaration of intent, but there is also a case where the degree of deception is not recognized until it becomes a ground for cancellation of the declaration of intent, and only constitutes a tort that is a ground for

In the instant case, the publicity and advertisement of Defendant 2 Company on the completion of the Pms are objectively false advertisements in terms of that the Pms were not included in the 2-stage basic plan for the Incheon International Airport Construction. Even if considering the fact that Defendant 2 Company had a favorable prospect for the Pms, it is clear that it is an exaggerated advertisement in terms of the way that the completion of the Pms was possible. Considering the degree of falsity and exaggeration and the degree of the Pms’ portion in determining the commercial value of the instant commercial facilities, the falsity and division division cannot be deemed within the limit socially acceptable in light of the general commercial practices and the good faith principle, but it is insufficient to view that the Pms’ portion in determining the value of the instant commercial facilities and the degree of the Defendants’ liability against falsity and exaggeration is considered to constitute a fraudulent act that constitutes the grounds for revocation. However, Defendant 2 Company’s fraudulent and exaggerated advertising and aiding and abetting Defendant 2 Company’s liability for damages.

(2) Scope of liability for damages

In a lawsuit seeking compensation for damages caused by a tort, where it is difficult to prove specific amount of damage in light of the nature of the case even though the maximum amount of property damage was recognized as having occurred, the court may determine the amount of damage which is the scope of proximate causal relation by comprehensively taking into account all the relevant indirect facts, including the relationship between the parties, which have been revealed by the result of examination of evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings, the background leading up to the tort and its occurrence of property damage, the nature of damage, and all the circumstances after the damage occurred (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da60447, Nov. 23, 2006, etc.)

In the case of this case, the amount of damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the above tort is equivalent to the decline in the lease value of the commercial facilities of this case leased by the plaintiffs. It can be deemed that the difference between the lease value of the commercial facilities of this case and the lease value of the commercial facilities of this case in the present condition where the Pms are not installed. In the case of the establishment of a Pms, the resident population or the floating population in the Incheon State of Supply would be convenient to use the commercial facilities of this case, and in particular, the inflow effect of the floating population would be expected to have a big impact on the market value, and the commercial area would have a significant impact on the inflow of the floating population, the amount of damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the above tort of the defendants should be deemed to be 25% of each rent of this case. However, the period of agreement exceeding 20 years under the lease agreement is invalid according to attached Table 3 attached hereto.

3. Determination as to the assertion on individual cancellation of the judgment of the Supreme Court and the plaintiff 7, 8, 9, 18, 24, 26, and 28, among the grounds for the claim Nos. 1 and 2 preliminary (the plaintiff 47 and 48 of the Supreme Court decision) against the defendant 2, as follows: deceit, mistake, performance impossibility, delay delay, warranty liability, rescission following waiver of contract deposit, partial invalidation of the lease contract, liquidated damages and the plaintiff 7,

(2) The phrase “9,570,000” shall be read as “58,520,000”, and “392,763” shall be read as “2,401,725”, and “21,776,763” shall be read as “2,76,725”, and “21,776,763” shall be read as “23,785,725” in the judgment of the court of first instance, and the phrase “23,785,725” shall be read as “23,725.”

4. Determination as to the claim for the establishment of a right of lease registration among the grounds for the second preliminary claim against Defendant 2 Co., Ltd. (Plaintiffs 47 and 48 of the Supreme Court Decision are simple combination)

If they pay the full amount of rent under each lease agreement, Defendant 2 Co., Ltd. is obligated to implement procedures for registration of establishment of a right of lease to each real estate listed in the separate sheet, and when considering the amount to be refunded from the paid rent to the Plaintiffs due to partial invalidation of a lease agreement, etc., the Plaintiffs paid the rent in full, and if there are rents to be additionally paid by the Plaintiffs, the Plaintiffs seek for the implementation of procedures for registration of establishment of a right

On the other hand, if the plaintiffs pay the full amount of the rent, the right of lease may be established on the leased object, and the defendant 2 corporation agreed to cooperate in the establishment of the right of lease, and even if some plaintiffs did not pay the full amount of the agreed rent, the defendant 2 corporation did not pay the full amount of the agreed rent. However, among the agreed rent to be paid by the plaintiffs, the defendant 2 corporation deducted the unpaid management expenses (No. 19,20) from July 2005 to December 2, 2006, which the defendant 2 claimed an additional set-off from the due rent and the due court, from the unpaid rent and the reasonable court, and returned each of the above stated amount in the attached Table 3-Attachment 3-Attachment 3 (No. 41,42,43) to the plaintiffs (excluding the plaintiff 42, and 43 of the Supreme Court decision) as compensation for damages due to tort. Accordingly, it is reasonable to view that the above plaintiffs' obligation to pay the rental fee and the above 2-Attachment 3 of the agreed lease agreement.

Therefore, Defendant 2 Co., Ltd. is obligated to perform the procedure for registration of creation of a right of lease with the amount of rent actually paid to the Plaintiffs (excluding Plaintiffs 41, 42, and 43 in the Supreme Court Decision) as a security deposit for lease. It is also obligated to pay KRW 12,80,023 from Plaintiff 41 in the Supreme Court Decision, KRW 6,156,910 in the Supreme Court Decision, KRW 42 in the Supreme Court Decision, KRW 6,156,910 in the Supreme Court Decision, and KRW 15,171,825 in the Supreme Court Decision, respectively, from Plaintiff 43

5. Conclusion

Therefore, (1) Defendant 2 corporation and Plaintiff 17,47, and 48 of the judgment of the Supreme Court are liable to pay each of the following amounts: (1) the amount indicated in the "amount of payment" column of attached Table 3 No. 17, 47, and 48; and (2) the amount indicated in the "amount of damage" column of Paragraph 1, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, 38, and 46 of attached Table 3 to Defendant 2 corporation jointly and severally with Defendant 2 corporation; and (3) the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay each of the above amounts as stated in the "amount of payment" clause of attached Table 3 to Defendant 3 to Defendant 1, 18, 19, 222, 24, 38, and 46 corporation from December 14, 2005 to May 2, 2008, the date following the delivery of an application for change of claim of compensation for delay.

In addition, Defendant 2 Co., Ltd. is obligated to implement the procedure for registration of establishment of the right of lease for each of the lease agreements of this case as described in Article 1(c) of the Disposition No. 1.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims in this case are accepted within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed due to reasons. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with some different conclusions, the part against the plaintiffs except for plaintiffs 47,48 in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be partially accepted, and the part against the plaintiffs in the judgment of the court of first instance concerning the plaintiff 47 and 48 in the judgment of the court of first instance shall not be modified disadvantageously to the above defendant. Thus, the appeal against the plaintiff 47 and 48 in the judgment of the court of first instance against the above defendant shall be dismissed.

[Attachment 1, 2 Plaintiff’s List and Attached 3’s Table, and each omission of indication of Attached 4’s real estate]

Judges Park Jong-chul (Presiding Judge)