A. The Defendants asserted 1) The Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government apartment complex (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

(2) On July 2007, the apartment building of this case is a company that constructed and sold it, and the aforementioned designated parties entered into a sales contract with the Defendants on the corresponding Dong and lake column for each of the corresponding Dong and lake column for each of the designated parties. (2) However, the apartment of this case has different parts of the model house, the construction differently from the original model house, the project approval drawing, or the construction completion drawing as well as the parts constructed differently from the original construction completion drawing.

3) As seen above, all of the aforementioned models, sales car sloping, business approval drawings, construction completion drawings, etc. constitute the sales contract terms concluded between the aforementioned designated parties and the Defendants. As such, the portion otherwise constructed is itself the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter “Aggregate Buildings Act”).

(4) The Defendants, who sold the apartment in this case, are jointly and severally liable to compensate the aforementioned designated parties for damages incurred by the said designated parties according to the warranty liability under the Act on the Fair Labeling and Advertising Act, and the scope of the damages therefrom falls under the “claim amount” of each of the claims by the designated parties, as stated in the separate sheet. In addition, the Defendants, as seen above, sold the apartment constructed differently from the contents of the sales contract, did not completely perform the sales contract, and can be deemed to have sold it through the act of false or exaggerated advertisement under Article 3(1)1 of the Act on the Fair Labeling and Advertising.

B. Determination 1 Plaintiffs E, F, I.m.