The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 10, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”). The Plaintiff occupied and used the instant real estate from the Defendant Co., Ltd. by setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 70,000,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 37,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 370,000, and from March 1, 2017 to November 9, 2019 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

B. On August 2018, the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant Company to reduce the monthly rent, but did not accept it, and expressed his wish to terminate the instant lease agreement early. Accordingly, from October 2018, the Defendant Company posted a banner to the effect that there is no premium, and notified the Plaintiff of such fact.

C. Until November 18, 2019, Defendant Company refunded all of the lease deposit upon the termination of the instant lease agreement to the Plaintiff.

On the other hand, only around January 3, 2020, the Plaintiff cancelled the registration of the establishment of a right to lease on a deposit basis for lease deposit stipulated in the instant lease agreement with respect to the instant real estate.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 5, Eul evidence No. 2 (including each number), video, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) around November 29, 2018 and around April 2019, the Defendants rejected the Plaintiff’s refusal without justifiable grounds despite being arranged by a new lessee to pay KRW 100 million premium; and (b) around March 2019, the Plaintiff posted an advertisement to the effect that the instant real estate had no premium on the premium, thereby blocking the Plaintiff’s opportunity to recover the premium at source.

Accordingly, the plaintiff, ① the unpaid premium of KRW 100,000,000.