Case Type: Return of Unjust Enrichment (Cancellation of Purchase Agreement and Withdrawal of Subscription) 

Result: All Claims of the Plaintiff Dismissed (Total Victory for Defendant Developer and Trustee, Litigation Costs Borne by Plaintiff) 

Case Details: 

1. Overview of the Case 

The Plaintiff (purchaser) entered into a purchase agreement for a 'De Opera Seocho Harrington Tower' officetel located in Seocho-dong, Seoul, and paid a total of KRW 76,993,000, covering the first and second down payments as well as the optional item deposit. However, the Plaintiff subsequently filed a lawsuit seeking the return of the down payments, claiming that the agreement should be canceled due to fraud or mistake, alleging that the sales agent misrepresented the required initial investment, exaggerated loan conditions, and failed to notify the necessity of optional items in advance. Furthermore, the Plaintiff argued that the agreement constituted 'telephone sales' under the Act on Door-to-Door Sales because it was initiated via a phone call with a sales consultant prior to visiting the show house, and asserted that the subscription was lawfully withdrawn within the statutory period. 

2. Strategy of the Law Firm and Judgment of the Court 

Our firm thoroughly analyzed Supreme Court precedents and transaction practices regarding real estate advertisements to systematically rebut the contradictions in the Plaintiff's arguments, and the Court accepted our arguments in their entirety, dismissing all of the Plaintiff's claims. First, the Court ruled that the required capital size and acquisition tax for a purchase agreement are matters to be verified by the purchaser themselves, and since potential changes in loan regulations were specified in the promotional materials, it did not constitute fraud or a breach of the duty to disclose. Second, the Court found that some of the explanations regarding neighboring market prices and profitability, which the Plaintiff took issue with, were statements made after the conclusion of the contract, and thus could not constitute a defect in the intent at the time of execution. Third, the Court determined that the optional contract was a secondary agreement separable from the main contract, and since its amount was negligible at 0.45% of the total price, it could not serve as a ground for canceling the entire purchase agreement. Lastly, considering that the Plaintiff initiated the consultation by first contacting the agent after reading a post on a real estate online forum and explicitly expressed interest in investing in an officetel, the Court firmly held that this did not constitute telephone sales or an eligible subject for withdrawal of subscription under the Act on Door-to-Door Sales, as it was not a case of actively inducing a consumer who had no intention to purchase. 

3. Significance 

This judgment reaffirms that it is difficult to invalidate a purchase agreement based on a simple change of mind due to recent market fluctuations or economic circumstances that the purchaser should have verified independently. Notably, it serves as a meaningful successful precedent that exempted the developer and trustee from liability by strictly interpreting the requirements for telephone sales under the Act on Door-to-Door Sales based on whether the consumer made the initial contact and expressed investment intent.

Case Inquiry: Attorney Woo-joong Kim