A. The Plaintiff is an occupant of the Seongbuk-gu B Apartment-gu, Ulsan Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant apartment”) and was sold by the Defendant each of 141 square meters (42 square meters) among the instant apartment.

B. At the time of November 25, 2010, an agreement was reached between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the matters related to the occupancy of the apartment complex established by the prospective occupants of the instant apartment including the Plaintiff and the prospective occupants’ council of prospective occupants in Ulsansan, and among them, it included the phrase “to not sell the apartment in discount.”

(hereinafter referred to as “the First Agreement”) C.

On September 7, 2011, the date of completion of the apartment of this case (as of September 7, 201), negotiations on 85 items (as of the evidence A2) that reflect the requirements of the occupants, including the Plaintiff, were conducted between the occupants and the Defendant of the apartment of this case.

With respect to the items related to discount sale, the occupants demanded that the Defendant apply 50% retroactively to the pre-existing contract-type 30,42 square meters at the time of discount sale, and 100% retroactively to the pre-existing contract-type 52,58 square meters. The Defendant responded to the purport that the pre-existing contract-type 58 square meters retroactively apply to the pre-existing contract-type 50%, and that the pre-existing contract-type 1

(hereinafter referred to as “the second agreement”) D.

On the other hand, the sales of the apartment of this case did not proceed as soon as possible, and the defendant conducted a discount sale on two occasions around August 15, 2012 and around March 16, 2013.

E. On October 17, 2012, following the progress of the first discount sale, an agreement was reached between the occupants and the Defendant of the instant apartment on October 17, 2012, and “the Defendant shall pay one million won in cash to the household that occupied the instant apartment by August 15, 2012 or completed the remainder payment.”

(hereinafter referred to as the “third agreement of this case”). . [Grounds for recognition] . [In the absence of dispute, Gap 1 through 6, Eul 1 and 2, Eul 3-1 and Eul 3-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The party's assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the assertion (i.e., the Plaintiff) is the apartment including the Plaintiff on November 25, 2010.