2. All of the plaintiffs' conjunctive claims are dismissed.

3...

A. The Plaintiffs purchased real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant commercial building”) from D on February 25, 2016 and completed the registration of ownership transfer as to each 1/2 portion on July 5, 2016.

B. On November 1, 2012, the Defendant leased the instant commercial building from the foregoing D with the lease deposit of KRW 100 million, monthly rent of KRW 3 million (payment on January 1), and the lease term from November 1, 2012 to October 31, 2017.

At the time, the defendant and D agreed that the monthly rent can be adjusted every two years, but as above, the monthly rent has not been adjusted once until the plaintiffs acquire ownership.

C. On July 19, 2016, the Plaintiffs sent text messages to the Defendant for the purpose of changing the monthly rent of KRW 5 million from November 1, 2016 to July 31, 2016, and the Defendant sent text messages to the effect that the monthly rent does not constitute an unilateral notification that could not be adjusted by mutual agreement, taking into account the business situation, etc.

On August 25, 2016, the plaintiffs notified the defendant that the above lease contract was terminated because there is no answer to the monthly rent change.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Eul evidence No. 5

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiffs asserted that ① did not succeed to the above lease agreement, ② the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act does not apply to the above lease agreement, and ② even if the plaintiffs succeeded to the above lease agreement on August 25, 2016, the defendant should compensate the plaintiffs for the name of the commercial building of this case and their damages (the monthly rent). The defendant asserts that the plaintiffs succeeded to the status of the lessor of the above lease agreement, and that the monthly rent can not be notified unilaterally by the plaintiffs by increasing the amount of 66%.2)