1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

purport, purport, and.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendants are the owners of the three-story buildings on the Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, E, and F ground (each of 1/2 shares), and their mother G manages the said building upon delegation by the Defendants.

B. The Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendants to lease KRW 20 million from July 15, 2013 to July 15, 2015 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the lease deposit amounting to KRW 500,000,000,000 for the first floor among the above buildings (hereinafter “instant store”). The Plaintiff operated the instant store’s first floor of “H” at the instant store.

C. The Defendants demanded the Plaintiff to deliver the instant store on the ground of the expiration of the term of the instant lease agreement, but failed to comply with the Plaintiff. On August 8, 2017, the Defendants filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking to deliver the instant store. On November 18, 2017, the Defendants concluded compulsory adjustment to deliver the instant store to the Defendants by July 17, 2018.

G on behalf of the Defendants during the process of the aforementioned conciliation allowed the Plaintiff to transfer the right to lease of the instant store to another person by July 17, 2018.

E. On June 11, 2018, the Plaintiff asked G to rent the instant store to the instant I real estate, and asked G through K whether the broker assistant of I real estate leased the instant store by telephone to G on June 11, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 4, Eul witness K's testimony and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff’s assertion refused to arrange for a new lessee and interfere with the Plaintiff’s opportunity to recover the premium. Therefore, the Defendants are obliged to pay KRW 8 million to the Plaintiff as damages due to interference with the collection of premium.

B. Determination 1) The former Commercial Building Lease Protection Act (amended by Act No. 15791, Oct. 16, 2018) (hereinafter referred to as “former Commercial Building Lease Protection Act”).