1. The plaintiffs' primary and conjunctive claims are all dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On July 31, 2012, Plaintiff B leased No. 106 of the instant shopping mall 10,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 450,000 (Additional Tax), from September 3, 2012 to September 2, 2017, Plaintiff B paid KRW 10,000,00 to the Defendant around that time.

B. On September 3, 2012, Plaintiff A leased KRW 200,000,000 for lease deposit, monthly rent of KRW 2,200,000 for the instant commercial building owned by the Defendant, and from September 3, 2012 to September 2, 2017, Plaintiff A paid KRW 200,000 for lease deposit to the Defendant around that time.

C. From September 3, 2012, the Plaintiffs integrated the instant Nos. 105 and 106 of the first floor of the shopping mall, and operated the “A” with the trade name “A” (hereinafter “instant refined land”).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including virtual number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. As seen above, the Plaintiffs: (a) leased Nos. 105 and 106 of the shopping mall 105 and 106 from the Defendant, and operated the instant land points; (b) due to the low sales rate, Plaintiff A was unable to operate the instant land points any longer since September 2013; and (c) Plaintiff B was unable to pay monthly rent from November 201, 2013; and (d) agreed to terminate each of the instant lease agreements with the Defendant around November 20, 2013; (b) the Plaintiffs agreed to pay the Defendant the remainder after deducting the unpaid management fee, etc. from each of the above lease deposits; (c) however, there is no evidence to prove that each of the above lease agreements was terminated; (d) the Plaintiffs’ primary claim is without merit.

B. (1) The Plaintiffs are in the vicinity of the instant commercial building, unlike the initial expectation, to claim for the reduction of lease deposit and monthly rent.