1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 10, 2012, at the representative committee meeting of the Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Committee for the Promotion of the Commercial Building, the Defendant resolved to implement the monetary reward system to pay a monetary reward equivalent to one-month rent to the sectional owners and employees who attract the leased company in the public room of the commercial building in order to promote the commercial building.

B. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs, the co-owner of the instant commercial building, found the F, which operated the instant business entity’s business entity’s business entity’s business on April 14, 2012 and May 18, 2012, recommended that the Plaintiff be additionally leased the first floor on the third floor of the said commercial building, but the contract was not concluded due to the difference in the amount of rent.

C. On the other hand, around June 8, 2012, the F entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on the first floor (1,213.71 square meters) of the instant commercial building (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the term of lease from July 1, 2012 to June 30, 2018, the lease deposit of KRW 1 billion, monthly rent of KRW 95 million (including management expenses) (hereinafter “the instant lease agreement”).

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

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiffs asserted from April 2012, when attracting tenants following the Defendant’s implementation of the monetary reward system, agreed with the above F on the terms and conditions of the instant commercial building on the first floor from April 2012 to receive monetary reward, but the contract was not concluded due to the difference in the amount of rent. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs continued to provide consultation on attracting salesroom occupants to occupy an external wedding business entity, and persons related to external business actively wishing to move into the situation.

Accordingly, around June 8, 2012, the above F would have been likely to occupy a competitor, and the Defendant entered into the instant lease agreement with the Defendant. However, the Defendant’s conclusion of the instant lease agreement with the above F was made by the efforts of the Plaintiffs. Therefore, the Defendant is against the Plaintiffs.