The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiffs.

A. On June 13, 2017, the Plaintiffs entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant and Seoul D’s 18.15 square meters of the ground floor and the facilities for cultural and assembly of the first floor and the second-class neighborhood living facilities (hereinafter “the first floor of the instant building”), and with respect to the parking lot site for the instant building (hereinafter “the instant theme”), as to deposit money of KRW 20 million, monthly rent of KRW 1.5 million, monthly rent of KRW 1.5 million, and the term of the lease contract from June 21, 2017 to June 20, 2019 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”), and operated a car page (hereinafter “E”). during the said contract period, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the trade name “E” (hereinafter “instant car page”).

B. As the Defendant did not reach a final agreement on the renewal of the instant lease agreement between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant, the Defendant notified the Plaintiffs of the termination of the instant lease agreement on July 3, 2019, and the Plaintiffs completed restitution of the leased object on or around the 8th of the same month, and delivered it to the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Gap evidence Nos. 7 through 10, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiffs' assertion

A. On April 30, 2019, the Plaintiffs asserted interference with the collection of premium, the Plaintiffs received KRW 50 million from F to transfer the instant car page to a new lessee. The Defendant was aware of the new lessee around May 1, 2019, and the Plaintiffs requested the new lessee to continue to enter into a contract with the new lessee on or around May 1, 2019, but the Defendant did not answer to the conclusion of the contract with the new lessee or the detailed terms and conditions of the contract more than one month to prevent the Plaintiffs from receiving premium from receiving the premium from the new lessee. Accordingly, the Defendant did not have any intention to enter into a contract with the new lessee. Accordingly, the Defendant’s refusal is deemed to have implicitly refused the contract with the new lessee.