1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 28, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with D with regard to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”), setting the lease deposit of KRW 15 million and KRW 800,000 per month on rent. On August 28, 2014, the Plaintiff increased the lease amount of KRW 90,000 per month on the instant real estate and entered into a lease agreement with the term of the lease from August 28, 2014 to August 27, 2016 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

B. The Defendants purchased the instant real estate from D on September 1, 2014 and completed the registration of ownership transfer on October 7, 2014, respectively.

C. On October 7, 2014, the Plaintiff concluded a lease agreement with the Defendants and the instant real estate with the terms of KRW 30 million, KRW 1.5 million per month, and the term of lease from October 7, 2014 to October 6, 2015 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

The Plaintiff is operating a restaurant with the trade name “E” in the instant real estate from September 2008.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff is a lessee with opposing power pursuant to the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act (hereinafter “Commercial Building Lease Protection Act”). The Defendants, even though they succeeded to a lessor’s status under the instant first lease agreement, entered into the instant second lease agreement with the Plaintiff with the intent to increase rent and lease deposit and reduce the contract period. The instant second lease agreement is null and void pursuant to Article 15 of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act as it violates Article 11 of the same Act.

B. Even if the instant secondary lease agreement does not become null and void, Defendant C and Licensed Real Estate Agent F had deceiving the Defendants, even though they succeeded to a lessor’s status under the instant first lease agreement, that they did not succeed to the Plaintiff.

As a result, the Plaintiff.