1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On January 27, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with Defendant B and four (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) stipulating the lease deposit amount of KRW 150,00,000, monthly rent of KRW 9,000 (excluding value-added tax), monthly management fee of KRW 450,000 (excluding value-added tax), monthly management fee of KRW 450,00, and the term of the contract from February 7, 2014 to February 6, 2019 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

B. The Plaintiff operated franchises at the instant store, and entered into a contract on November 8, 2014 to transfer the instant store business rights to E, and subsequently, succeeded to the status of the lessee of the instant lease.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 3, the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s claim for restitution of unjust enrichment against KRW 7 million was 1) The franchise specialty store operated by the Plaintiff must execute all the identical interiors. The Defendants considered and demanded removal during the interior works executed by the Plaintiff. The removal of the franchise is difficult due to the impossibility of termination of the franchise contract, and the Defendants demanded money on the condition of not demanding removal of the franchise. The Plaintiff paid KRW 7 million to the Defendant, without any choice, because it is likely to cause enormous damages if the Plaintiff is unable to open its business as scheduled. The Defendants, taking advantage of the lessor’s superior position, would not normally start the coffee specialty store business without having complied with the Plaintiff’s request. Such an act of conflict by the Defendants constitutes tort or unjust enrichment, and thus the Defendants’ store should return KRW 7 million to the Plaintiff.2 million to the Plaintiff.