1. The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On May 25, 2010, the Plaintiff concluded a lease agreement between the Defendants and the Defendants with respect to the entire first floor (hereinafter “instant store”) among Mapo-gu Seoul Building owned by the Defendants, with a deposit of KRW 20 million, monthly rent of KRW 1 million, and the lease term from May 31, 2010 to May 31, 2012 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

At the time, the Plaintiff and the Defendants agreed that the premium relationship is not related to the owner of the building (the Defendants) as a special agreement.

B. Since then, broadcasting stations moved to the vicinity of the instant store, commercial districts were activated as a result of the transfer. On May 8, 2014, when the instant lease agreement was renewed, the monthly rent was increased to KRW 1.3 million upon the Plaintiff’s request to increase the rent, and the term of lease was drafted from May 31, 2014 to May 30, 2015.

At the time, the Plaintiff and the Defendants agreed to enter into a special agreement with the lessee at the time that the lessor does not participate in the premium: Provided, That the lessor does not recognize the premium in the event that the lessor uses it due to the necessity of the lessor.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant special agreement”). [The grounds for recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap 1, Gap 2-1, Eul 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Assertion and determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff and the Defendants did not renew the instant lease agreement on April 2015, and the Plaintiff agreed to seek a new lessee. Accordingly, the Plaintiff concluded a premium agreement with E and the Defendants, which met the conditions of KRW 2,30,000,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 3,000,000 as requested by the Defendants, and concluded a lease agreement with E and the Defendants.

However, the Defendants made it difficult for the Defendants to point out the terms and conditions of the lease agreement and demanded that they be excessively higher deposit and difference compared to the market price. Upon acceptance of the Defendants’ demands, the Defendants intentionally concluded the lease agreement by failing to reach the E mind.