beta
Text
1. The defendants shall jointly list each of the plaintiffs listed in [Attachment 2] No. 40 to 266 of [Attachment 1].
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Defendants concluded a sales contract (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) with the Plaintiffs listed in [Attachment 1] Nos. 40 through 266 of [Attachment 1] from November 2010 to December 2012, 201, with respect to the apartment of this case, as the selling company of Yeonsu-gu Incheon Metropolitan City KTB Bable apartment (hereinafter “instant apartment”). The sales contract of this case was executed by the Defendant, a sales agency, by setting the sales price as the amount indicated in the “supply Price” column in [Attachment 2] of [Attachment 2].
B. Around March 2011, the Defendants promised to offer discount benefits to Plaintiff D, etc. who purchased the above special supply household while selling the apartment of this case at a discount of supply household, and then exclusively stored a special agreement stating the contents of the above discount benefits and confidentiality on the ground of the confidentiality of the existing buyers, etc. (hereinafter “instant special agreement”).
However, the Defendants granted the same discount benefits to the previous buyers after the sale of the Plaintiff D, etc. was made.
C. Meanwhile, from January 2013, after the sale of the instant apartment complex to Plaintiff D, etc., the Defendants implemented the “frithic book” with the content that “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, deferred for two years, and the remainder payment shall be deferred for two years, and if several buyers withdraw their purchase intent, the total amount already paid shall be refunded.” As a result, the performance of the “frithic book” in 2013 (615 households) was significantly increased compared to the sales performance in 2012 (26 households).
In addition, the defendants are not required to do so.