1. Case Overview
A. Party Represented by Barun Law
The developer and sales company of a newly constructed apartment complex.

B. Case Background
Buyers of the newly constructed apartments claimed that the actual completed buildings differed from the promotional advertisements on the website and sales announcement. They also argued that the developer and sales company failed to disclose the presence of a nearby electrical substation, violating the duty of good faith to disclose material facts. Based on these claims, the buyers filed a lawsuit seeking damages against the developer and sales company.

2. Court Decision
The court dismissed all claims for damages filed by the buyers against the developer and sales company.

3. Our Arguments and Role
We successfully argued and provided evidence demonstrating the following key points:
A. No False or Exaggerated Representations in Advertisements
- The promotional materials did not contain false or misleading statements.
- The sales brochure, website, and purchase agreements clearly stated that advertised images and descriptions were for buyers' reference only and that the final design might differ due to regulatory approvals or urban planning changes.

B. No Intentional Omission of Information
- The developer and sales company did not deliberately conceal or provide false information.
- They relied on the publicly disclosed urban planning documents provided by the relevant government authorities.

C. The Electrical Substation Did Not Significantly Impact Residents
- The substation was approximately 100 meters away from the apartment complex, meaning it did not infringe on the buyers' living conditions to an extent that warranted compensation.

D. The Buyers' Valuation Method for Damage Claims Was Unreliable
- The buyers relied on a valuation method based on the Comparable Sales Approach, but this was deemed highly unreliable.
- Since no credible method existed to determine an exact amount of damages, the buyers' claim for financial compensation should be rejected.

4. Significance of the Decision
We argued and successfully demonstrated that the promotional advertisements for the newly constructed apartments did not violate the Act on Fair Labeling and Advertising nor the duty of good faith to disclose material facts. In addition, we challenged the credibility of the valuation results, asserting that they were unreliable and could not serve as a basis for determining the amount of damages. The court accepted these arguments and dismissed all claims by the buyers. This case will serve as an important reference for similar disputes in the future.