Of the part concerning the conjunctive claim of the first instance judgment, the part against the plaintiffs ordering payment below.

1. The summary of the case asserts that the Plaintiffs, who purchased apartment units from the Defendant Anti-Do Holdings Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Anti-Do Holdings”), suffered damage (in fact, property damage and preliminary mental damage) due to the act of collusion of selling prices of apartment units in the A district including the Defendants, and that Defendant Anti-Do Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Anti-Do Construction”) established by the said Defendant, established by the Defendant anti-Do Holdings and the said Defendant, established by the said Defendant (hereinafter “Defendant Anti-Do Construction”), jointly and severally liable for the sale of apartment units against the Plaintiffs, as long as the Defendants jointly and severally liable for the sale of apartment units in relation to the purchase of apartment units against the Plaintiffs, the subject of sale should be expressed together as “the Defendants”).

The first instance court dismissed all the plaintiffs' primary and conjunctive claims against the defendants, and the plaintiffs appealed against them.

2. The court's explanation of this case is as follows: (a) among the judgment of the court of first instance, the "decision on the primary argument" of 13 2 Myeon 13 is used as "1) whether or not property damage has occurred (the main claim)"; (b) the "decision on the conjunctive argument" of 14 Do 12 not more than 12 Do 12 Do 13 is used as follows 3; and (c) the argument of the plaintiffs in this court is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of first instance, except for the addition in paragraph (4) below, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of first instance; (c) the part used on March 3 (14 Do 13 to 15 Do 6 Do 15 Do 14) is accepted as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.