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

A. On July 1, 2013, the Plaintiffs entered into a lease agreement with Defendant C on the lease deposit amounting to KRW 30 million, monthly rent of KRW 7 million, and the lease period from July 1, 2013 to June 30, 2014 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

B. After that, the Plaintiffs operated the Pice Center in the instant building, and the said lease agreement was renewed on a one-year basis after the conclusion of the contract, which was terminated on April 24, 2017.

C. On April 25, 2017, Defendant C concluded a lease agreement on the instant building with Defendant D.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 3 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' assertion

A. The plaintiffs agreed to enter into a lease agreement with Defendant C as the lease deposit of KRW 70 million, monthly rent of KRW 70 million (including value added tax). However, Defendant C refused to enter into a lease agreement with Defendant D while excluding the plaintiffs, and concluded a lease agreement with Defendant D and the initial plaintiffs as the lease deposit of KRW 100 million, monthly rent of KRW 8,800,000,000, which is the amount higher than the lease deposit and monthly rent provided to Defendant D, which is contrary to the good faith principle.

B. In leasing the instant building, Defendant D promised to pay the Plaintiffs the premium of KRW 50 million, but failed to comply with it.

3. Determination

A. Each description and image of Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 6, and 10 (including each number) that the Defendants interfered with the collection of premiums by the plaintiffs, without excluding the plaintiffs, the lease deposit and month provided by the first plaintiffs to defendant D.