1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

The court's explanation about this case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the parts to be cited or added under the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, it is acceptable to accept this case as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. The second part of the part to be used or added is as follows:

A. Each of the plaintiffs listed in the [Attachment 1] Nos. 1 through 12, 14 through 19, 21, and 23 was purchased from the defendant as stated in the attached Form 2 sales contract (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "instant sales contract"), and each of the above sales contracts was purchased from the defendant.

(2) Each of the plaintiffs listed in the list Nos. 13, 20, and 22 of the plaintiffs' list Nos. 13, 20, and 22 shall be ordered as follows from the defendant to No. 20 to No. 6. 5 of the "the first unit unit of the apartment

In light of the fact that the Defendant’s officers in charge of the sale of the instant apartment at the time of entering into the instant sale contract, the Defendant’s testimony by the witness E of the first instance trial, which corresponds thereto, is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Defendant’s officers in charge of the sale of the instant apartment at the time of entering into the instant sale contract, “after the completion of at least 60% of the instant apartment, and will not sell at a discount in the future,” and the testimony by the witness E of the first instance trial, which corresponds thereto, is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that there is no other evidence to acknowledge the fact that the Defendant’s officers in charge of the sale of the instant apartment at the time of entering into the sale contract (as the witness E of the first instance trial, the Defendant stated that there was no plan for the discount sale of the instant apartment to E and AR, including the Plaintiffs, around April 18, 2013, but at that time, it appears that the sale rate was low for a long period of at least one year and five months after entering into the instant sale contract.