1. The Defendants jointly pay to the Plaintiff KRW 43,327,00 and the interest rate thereon from November 22, 2017 to the date of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 22, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with D setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 10,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 600,000 (Additional tax separate), from October 20, 2012 to October 20, 2014 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

B. On October 16, 2012, the Plaintiff registered the business under the trade name of “F,” and opened a restaurant from November 1, 2012 after obtaining the fixed date.

C. After that, the instant lease agreement was increased to KRW 700,000 per month, and the term of the lease was implicitly renewed.

The Defendants purchased the instant commercial building from D on March 24, 2017, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on June 14, 2017, respectively.

E. On April 28, 2017, the Plaintiff terminated the instant lease agreement to the Defendants as of October 20, 2017.

“Notice” was sent, and the above notification was sent to the Defendants.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. (1) The Plaintiff, upon notifying the Defendants of the termination of the instant lease agreement, concluded a premium agreement with G, a new lessee, and demanded the Defendants to cooperate in collecting the premium through a new lease agreement. The Defendants unilaterally demanded unfavorable conditions to G and refused the Plaintiff’s request for consultation, thereby destroying the premium agreement between the Plaintiff and G.

The Defendants’ act constitutes interference with the Plaintiff’s legitimate opportunity to recover premiums, and thus, should compensate the Plaintiff for the damages pursuant to Article 10-4(3) of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act.

(2) The Defendants, while running a restaurant, leased a neighboring building and run a water supply plant.