1. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On November 16, 2013, Defendant D leased KRW 75,000,000, KRW 3,500,000, and the period of two years to Plaintiff D’s lease deposit (hereinafter “instant shopping district”). At the time, Defendant D and Plaintiff C, the spouse of Defendant D, and Plaintiff A, the spouse of Plaintiff B, respectively, entered into a lease contract on their behalf. The Plaintiffs operated the party hall in the instant shopping district.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.

Upon the renewal of the instant lease agreement, the expiration date was extended on November 16, 2017. Defendant D entered into a contract with Plaintiff B on January 5, 2017, which was prior to the expiration date of the contract, to change the deposit amount of KRW 100 million, KRW 3700,000, and the period to November 15, 2019 (hereinafter “instant modified contract”), and the instant modified contract was also entered into on behalf of the spouse.

C. Meanwhile, Defendant D traded the instant commercial building to G on September 26, 2017, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant commercial building to G on November 17, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2-1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiffs asserted that the contract of this case was concluded 11 months prior to the expiration of the contract because they did not reach the strong pressure of the defendants to allow the business of this case to terminate and lease the business of this case as hospital facilities, and they committed a tort contrary to the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act by making a special agreement that no premium should be acknowledged at the time of concluding the contract of modification and allowing the transfer of the store to another person to suspend the transfer of the store. Since the above series of acts were a means for selling the commercial building of this case at high price based on the contract of this case, the defendants who infringed upon their legitimate rights.