1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 19, 2015, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant agreement”) with Plaintiff B on the terms that the five-story 203.21 square meters of the five-story building in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu (hereinafter “instant store”) owned by the Defendant was determined as deposit money of KRW 40 million, monthly rent of KRW 1.7 million (excluding value-added tax and KRW 17 million per month) and that the rent of KRW 1.7 million was leased (hereinafter “instant contract”).

B. After the contract of this case, the Plaintiff B requested the Defendant to have the name of lessee E, who is the Plaintiff B’s son.

Accordingly, the defendant prepared a contract with the plaintiff B as joint and several sureties with respect to the store of this case, the deposit and monthly rent are the same as the tenant, and the tenant's name is E, but the plaintiff B is the joint and several sureties's obligation.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings]

2. The plaintiffs' assertion and judgment as to them

A. Before the formation of the instant contract, the Plaintiffs and the Defendant concluded a provisional contract between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant to make the instant store free of charge for the monthly rent of KRW 40 million, monthly rent of KRW 1.5 million, public charges and management fees, KRW 200,000,000 from May 19, 2015, and KRW 2 years from May 19, 2015, and from May 19, 2015 to June 19, 2015.

However, at the time of the conclusion of the instant contract, the Defendant entered the monthly rent of KRW 1.7 million in the monthly rent of KRW 1.7 million without the consent of the Plaintiff B, and entered the monthly rent of KRW 1.87 million in the aggregate. Moreover, the Defendant claimed a rent for the said period against the agreement that the monthly rent of KRW 1.8 million should be free of charge.

Accordingly, since the contract of this case was concluded by the Defendant’s deception, the Plaintiffs cancel the above contract and seek the return of deposit KRW 40 million to their original state.

B. Prior to the preparation of the instant contract as to the Plaintiff A’s assertion, it is identical with the Plaintiffs’ assertion regarding the instant store between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant.