1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

A. On or around December 2011, the Plaintiffs were the persons who purchased from the Defendant each of the 47 square meters or 52 square meters of the A Apartment in Gyeyang-si (hereinafter “A apartment”) (hereinafter “each of the instant apartment”), and the Defendant, as the executor and pilot of the A apartment, sold each of the instant apartment units to the Plaintiffs.

B. The Plaintiffs purchased each of the instant apartment units from the Defendant and began to move into from May 2013.

C. From January 1, 2014, the Defendant sold an unsold household unit of A’s apartment unit (47 square meters and 52 square meters) to a new contractor by way of the remaining advance payment discount and the payment of defect repair expenses, etc. (hereinafter “instant discount sale”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, 6 (including virtual number), Eul evidence 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' assertion that at the time of sale, the defendant made an advertisement that "the security system for the conditions of sale in lots" was implemented at the model house at the time of sale in lots, and agreed not to sell at a discount to the plaintiffs, and there was a duty of care under the principle of good faith to consider not to make excessive equity between the pre-existing buyers who enter the apartment at the normal price as the plaintiffs and the new buyers, notwithstanding the fact that they violated the above agreement and the duty of care, the plaintiffs violated the above agreement and the duty of care, thereby causing damages to the plaintiffs by immediately cutting down the apartment price corresponding to the discount price, and thus, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiffs for damages caused by the above tort or default.

3. Determination

A. In full view of the overall purport of Gap evidence No. 2, Eul evidence Nos. 6 and 10, whether the sale of the discount in this case violates the guarantee agreement on the terms of sale, and the whole purport of the arguments, the defendant is the plaintiffs.