beta
(영문) 인천지방법원 2016.07.15 2015가합51490

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The defendants shall jointly list each of the plaintiffs listed in the separate sheet 6 to 30 as shown in the separate sheet 1.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendants, as a sales company of Yeonsu-gu Incheon Metropolitan City B apartment (hereinafter “instant apartment”), concluded a sales contract (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) with the Plaintiffs listed in attached Tables 6 through 30 from November 201 to October 201, 201, setting the sales price for the instant apartment as the amount indicated in the attached Table 2 “supply Price” column in attached Table 2. The instant sales contract was executed by the Defendant, a sales agency, by set the sales contract (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

B. Around March 2011, the Defendants promised to offer discount benefits to Plaintiff C, etc. who purchased the above special supply household while selling the apartment of this case at a discount of supply household, and subsequently exclusively stored a special agreement stating the contents of the said discount benefits and confidentiality on the grounds of confidentiality of the existing buyers, etc. (hereinafter “the instant special agreement”).

However, the Defendants granted the same discount benefits to the previous buyers after the sale of the Plaintiff C, etc. was made.

C. Meanwhile, from January 2013, after the sale of the instant apartment in lots to Plaintiff C, etc., the Defendants implemented the “frithic book” with the following purport: “If the Defendants paid 20% of the total selling price and received a loan under the name of the buyer, and paid 60% of the intermediate payment, interest on the said loan for two years, ownership transfer registration expenses, acquisition tax on behalf of the Defendants shall be paid on behalf of the Defendants, deferred payment for two years, and the remainder payment shall be deferred for two years, and if the buyer withdraws his/her intent to purchase, the sales price already paid shall be refunded in full.” As a result, the sales performance in 2013 (615 households) increased remarkably compared to the sales performance in 2012 (26 households).

In addition, the defendants are in the apartment of this case.