1. The defendant's appeal is all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning for this Court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for the Defendant’s assertion of interference with the opportunity to recover premiums in the court of first instance as to “the allegation of interference with the opportunity to collect premiums,” and therefore, it is consistent with the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance. As such, it shall be cited by the main sentence of

2. The defendant asserts that since the defendant tried to recover the premium by seeking a new lessee around October 2015, before December 1, 2015, which began to delay the rent, it does not fall under any of the grounds under Article 10(1)1 of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act, and the plaintiffs are responsible for compensating for the damages as they interfered with the defendant's opportunity to recover the premium in violation of the main sentence of Article 10-4(1) of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act.

However, Article 10-4 (1) of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act only stipulates that "from three months before the lease term expires until the termination of the lease" shall not interfere with the lessor's opportunity to recover the premium of the lessee. As recognized earlier, the lease contract in this case continues to be maintained despite the Defendant's delayed delay, and is terminated on December 31, 2016, and there is no room for the above provision to apply to the Defendant's assertion on October 2015.

Moreover, on October 2015, the Defendant arranged for a new lessee to the Plaintiffs on the sole basis of the statement of No. B No. 1.

Since it is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiffs interfere with the opportunity to recover premiums, the above argument by the defendant cannot be seen as any conspiracy or acceptance.

3. The decision of the first instance court is legitimate, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.