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

A. On May 25, 2016, between E and E, the Plaintiffs concluded a contract to lease the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F Ground Building (hereinafter “instant building”) with a deposit of KRW 40 million, monthly rent of KRW 4.5 million, and the term of the lease from June 15, 2016 to June 15, 2018 (hereinafter “instant lease contract”).

B. On May 25, 2016, the Plaintiffs entered into a contract with Defendant D to acquire all facilities of the leased object as indicated in the foregoing paragraph (a) at KRW 50 million for the premium (hereinafter “instant acquisition agreement”).

[Reasons for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entry of evidence A1 and 2, purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The plaintiffs' assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiffs alleged that ① the Defendants recommended the Plaintiffs to acquire the right to lease of the instant building, and at the time, the Plaintiffs clearly expressed that they wish to operate for a long period of time in the instant building.

② However, the instant building was scheduled to be reconstructed more than two years, and the Defendants, despite being well aware of such fact with the lessor’s notification, stated false facts, such that the period of lease may be extended continuously to the Plaintiffs, and that the instant building will not be reconstructed because the area of the site of the instant building is small.

③ As above, the Defendants deceptioned the Plaintiffs to enter into the instant acquisition agreement and received premium of KRW 50 million. As such, the Defendants are obligated to pay the Plaintiffs the unpaid amount of KRW 50,234,540 ( KRW 50,000 + KRW 234,540 out of the electricity charges incurred until June 15, 2016 when the Defendants leased and used the instant building).

B. First of all, we examine whether the Defendants committed tort as alleged by the Plaintiffs, and examine the records of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and witness G’s testimony.