1. The Defendants’ respective individual Plaintiffs are the money stated in the attached Table 2’s “defensive Data” as well as each of them.

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant Cheongdong Housing Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Cheongdong Housing”) is an executor of the new construction and sale of the apartment complex A (hereinafter “instant apartment complex”) in Daegu Seo-gu, Daegu, and the construction of the Defendant Dasan Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Dasan Construction”) is the starting construction of the said project.

B. The plaintiffs (the plaintiffs among the plaintiffs, who purchased at 49 square meters of apartment units of this case or who succeeded to the status of the sales contract from the initial buyer) entered in the "Dong-ho Housing Construction" column of attached Table 2 among the apartment units of this case from May 14, 2007 to January 18, 2010, and the first buyer entered the sales contract status in the "Dong/Dong-ho" column of attached Table 2 among the apartment units of this case between May 14, 2007 and the first buyer entered the sales contract in the amount as stated in the "Dong-ho Housing Construction" column of attached Table 2, and the first buyer succeeded to the status of the sales contract as the amount stated in the "Dong-ho Housing Construction" column of the same Table as the "sale price" column of the apartment unit of this case.

(2) The Plaintiff’s assertion that each of the above sales contracts constitutes “instant sales contract” and that each of the above sales contracts does not distinguish between the acts of the Plaintiffs and those of those who succeeded to the status of the status of the sales contract and that of those who succeeded to the status of the sales contract and that of those who succeeded to the status of the sales contract and that of those who succeeded to the status of the sales contract should be stated as one of the above Plaintiffs’ acts.

A. 1) The Defendants, as the parties to the instant parcelling-out contract, deceptioned the Plaintiffs during the process of concluding the instant parcelling-out contract as the parties to the instant parcelling-out contract, and thus, the instant parcelling-out contract concluded by the Defendants’ fraud is revoked through the delivery of the duplicate of the instant complaint. (A) The Defendants’ notice of false parcelling-out rate (1) at the time of entering into the instant parcelling-out contract.