Background
A purchaser who had chosen the "expanded" configuration combining several units claimed damages from the developer, arguing that "removing the partition walls cost me the expense of building them back later." Changchun represented the developer.
The Issue — Is There the "Actual Loss" That Compensation Presupposes?
For liability in damages, there must be not only an unlawful act and attributable fault but actual, definite loss and causation. Loss is normally calculated as the difference between "the financial position that would have existed but for the act" and "the current financial position" (the difference theory). But the expanded configuration was something the purchaser had chosen for themselves in the first place, for more space and better rental efficiency — so whether any disadvantage amounting to loss had arisen was itself in dispute.
How Changchun Helped
Changchun (attorneys Jaesun Yoon and Donghwan Shin) contested the very existence of "loss" head-on, showing point by point that ① the purchaser chose the expanded configuration from the outset intending to use the units as one, so the absence of partition walls was not an unforeseen disadvantage but the very result they wanted; ② they received a gift (gold) in return, so they were in fact economically better off; and ③ having bought on the premise of combined use, the cost of rebuilding the walls could not be regarded as arising ordinarily and inevitably, so no loss could be recognized under the difference theory.
Conclusion
The court dismissed the claim, holding that no loss was established (judgment for our client).
Damages begin with proof of "actual loss," not vague dissatisfaction. The case makes clear that a condition chosen by the claimant themselves, from which they even profited, cannot later be recast as "loss." (Outcomes may differ depending on the facts of each matter.)