1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 32,054,400 to the Plaintiff and Defendant B with respect thereto, and Defendant C on March 29, 2020 to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. 1) On April 2, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) on the ground E (hereinafter “instant store”) from the Defendants, Seocho-gu Seoul, Seocho-gu, and four parcels; (b)

(2) From April 11, 2014 to April 10, 2016, the term of lease is set at KRW 50 million, KRW 50 million, and KRW 2.4 million per month, and the said lease is set at KRW 2.4 million (hereinafter referred to as “instant lease agreement”).

(2) On March 24, 2014, the time when the instant lease agreement was concluded, the Plaintiff was transferred signboards, air conditioners, and kitchen supplies, etc. from F, the lessee of the said store, and paid KRW 20 million for that purpose, but thereafter, 4.5 million was returned from F.

B. Since then, the instant lease agreement has been renewed twice, and finally, the term of lease was changed from April 11, 2018 to April 10, 2020, deposit money KRW 20 million, and rent KRW 1 million per month.

C. On February 2020, the Plaintiff notified the Defendants that they did not intend to renew the instant lease agreement, and arranged G to the Defendants as a new lessee.

However, on February 25, 2020, the Defendants sent to the Plaintiff a certificate of content to the effect that they refuse to conclude a lease agreement with G.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) refused to renew the instant lease agreement and arranged for a new lessee G to receive the premium. However, the Defendants refused to conclude a lease agreement with G. Therefore, the Defendants are entitled to the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act (hereinafter “Commercial Building Lease Protection Act”).

(2) Under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, a building in which the Defendants’ stores in this case are located is subject to reconstruction under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents.