1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

Facts of recognition

The Plaintiff agreed to operate the real estate brokerage office with D and decided to acquire the “H real estate” jointly operated by the F and G in Ansan-gu E Commercial Building No. 103 (hereinafter “instant commercial building”).

Accordingly, on May 8, 2009, the Plaintiff and D paid F and G KRW 25,000,000 for the premium, and on May 8, 2009, concluded a lease agreement with the owner of the instant commercial building by May 7, 201, between the lease deposit amount of KRW 10,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 500,000, and the lease period of KRW 500,000, May 7, 2014.

Since then, the Plaintiff paid KRW 19,288,892 to D for settlement of accounts and settled the said brokerage office on December 8, 2010, and entered into a lease agreement with I on December 7, 2015, and the remaining terms and conditions were the same as the prior lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

The Defendants purchased 1/2 shares of each of the instant commercial buildings from I on March 19, 2015, and each of the instant commercial buildings for the same year.

4. 10. Completion of the registration of ownership transfer.

On September 3, 2015 and September 11, 2015, the Defendants sent to the Plaintiff a certificate that the instant lease agreement will be terminated, and until December 7, 2015, the instant commercial building was non-consigned.

After the expiration of the term of the instant lease agreement, the Plaintiff moved the place of business to another commercial building in the same building as the instant commercial building.

【Ground of recognition” without any dispute, Gap 1-12 evidence (including a land number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul 1-1, and the purport and purport of the whole pleadings, and judgment of the plaintiff, the plaintiff asserts that when the lease contract of this case is terminated, the plaintiff would directly operate the refined point in the commercial building of this case, and that the plaintiff's new tenant's refusal of the contract of this case and deprived of the opportunity to recover the premium, and sought compensation for damages by applying or applying mutatis mutandis Article 10-4 of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act

Article 10-4 of the Act provides that the premium shall be paid to a person who intends to become a new lessee arranged by the lessee in accordance with the premium contract in paragraph (1).