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

A. On May 10, 2005, Plaintiff B entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on a deposit of approximately KRW 20,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 2,200,000, and the period from May 10, 2005 to May 9, 2008 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with respect to the underground level of approximately 140,00,000 of the building D ground (hereinafter “instant real estate”), which is owned by the Defendant, for the purpose of lease from May 10, 2005 to May 9, 2008 (hereinafter “the instant lease agreement”). As a special agreement, the lessee voluntarily terminated the lease contract at will and was on behalf of the lessor including the body of the facilities, after the completion of the contract period. The lessee cannot demand the lessor for the facility cost and premium after the completion of the contract period.

B. From May 10, 2005, the Plaintiffs, while running a restaurant business on the instant real estate in mutual name, did not pay the monthly rent, the instant real estate was flooded on October 9, 2006.

C. On July 1, 2007, the Plaintiffs did not run any longer in the instant real estate without reporting the closure of business on July 1, 2007. The Defendant disposed of the Plaintiffs’ goods remaining in the instant real estate on or around 201, and leased the instant real estate to another person.

Plaintiff

A around March 2016, on the ground that the Defendant disposed of the Plaintiffs’ goods in the instant real estate without permission, filed a petition with the Seongbuk Police Station for the charge of larceny, but the Seongbuk Police Station completed internal investigation on the grounds that it is difficult to recognize the charge of the crime and there is no ground to prove it.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, evidence 5, evidence 6-1, 2, Eul evidence 1 through 3, evidence 4-1 through 8, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiffs asserted that the defendant neglected the management of the real estate of this case and caused flooding. Accordingly, the plaintiffs' use of and profit from the real estate of this case was impossible. Thus, the defendant raised objection against the plaintiffs.