Commercial Building Sales Contract Dispute: A Case Study

Recently, there have⁢ been several lawsuits where buyers have sought termination or cancellation‍ of sales ⁢contracts or compensation for damages against ⁢construction companies due to the presence of pillars inside newly sold commercial buildings. One such case involved a⁣ buyer who assigned the ‍right of pre-sale to a subcontractor who had received a commercial unit in a large residential-commercial complex.

The buyer requested the return of the deposit due to​ the cancellation​ of the‍ pre-sale contract against H ⁢Construction Company, alleging ⁤that they had‍ not⁣ been informed of ‌the existence of two load-bearing pillars inside ⁣the commercial building. The first trial established ‌that “H Construction Company failed to properly fulfill its obligation to inform the⁤ tenant about the existence of⁤ the pillar” and upheld the customer’s ⁣claim.

However, Shin & Kim Law Firm, LLC, prosecuted the appellate case on behalf of H Construction Company and obtained a judgment reversing the original judgment and dismissing all of the assignee’s claims.

Issues and Main Decisions of ‌the Case

The buyer argued⁤ that the sales manager did not inform ⁢them ‌of the ‍pillars ⁢inside⁣ the commercial building when signing the sales ​contract. The buyer also‌ presented the⁢ contractor’s confirmation ​letter, arguing ⁣that the existence of ⁤the pillar could ⁢not be ​known⁢ just by looking at the ‘□’ sign.

Sejong ‌Law Firm, which represented H Construction Company in the appeal, stated that⁢ the‌ pillars were clearly depicted⁣ on​ the ⁣model map installed inside the model house. The firm also argued‍ that the⁣ buyer was aware of the existence of pillars​ inside the mall due ⁢to ‌the location and differences in selling prices for ‍pyeong.

The⁢ firm actively used the cross-examination of witnesses⁢ to impeach the ​unfavorable testimonies in the first trial. The entire process of concluding‌ a sales contract was brought to light through ⁣a witness⁤ interview of ‍the sales‌ manager.

The Court of Appeal accepted the‌ argument of Sejong⁢ Law Firm ⁣and stated that the buyer had ​confirmed​ the existence of the ⁣pillars⁤ through the model drawing and the contractor’s confirmation. The court ⁣also noted that the shopping mall in question was in‌ a better​ location⁣ than neighboring ‌shopping malls, but the sales price for pyeong was⁢ set at a lower price due to the internal pillars.

Significance‍ of ⁢the Case

In the event of a dispute, the court generally ‍judges whether the⁣ notification obligation has⁢ been fulfilled, taking ⁣into account the relevant information gap or ⁢the superiority or inferiority of the buyer and the sales company. In this case, the court of appeal overturned the first⁤ instance ruling and rejected the buyer’s claims.

The case highlights the importance of active witness questioning and ⁤mandatory notification through various means at each stage of the sales contract. It ​also⁢ demonstrates⁣ that ⁤the court may consider ​aspects of implementation, comparison of the location and sale price of ​the shopping complex in ⁤question with other‍ shopping complexes, and arrive at a different verdict than in the first trial.