Law Firm Gyeong-Gyeong, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Attorney Kim Jae-ap et al.

Law Firm Doz. (Law Firm Doz.)

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 5 others

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A. Article 10-8 of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Commercial Building Lease Protection Act”) provides that a lessor may terminate a contract on the grounds of a lessor’s delay, “if the amount of the rent exceeds the amount of three (3) terms.” On the other hand, with respect to the grounds for a lessor to refuse a lessee’s request for renewal of the contract, the term “if the lessor is in arrears with the amount equivalent to the three (3) terms and conditions” (Article 10(1)1 of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act), its purport is that the lease relationship is based on trust between the parties, and thus, the contractual relationship is not extended by the lessee’s unilateral intent, even if the lessor is in arrears with the amount of three (3) terms and conditions for the lessee’s refusal to renew the contract (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Da58975, Jul. 24, 2014).

In light of the language and purport of the above provisions, if there is a delay in the payment of the rent for a period of three (3) minutes at any time during the lease term, the lessor may refuse the request for renewal of the contract, and the lessee does not necessarily have to have the delay in payment for three (3) minutes at the time of exercising the right to request renewal of the contract.

B. On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lessor, who is the lessee, was in arrears for three months until the Defendant pays part of the overdue rent on September 8, 2017, the Plaintiffs were entitled to refuse the Defendant’s request for renewal of the contract, and that the lease of this case terminated on August 31, 2018, which is the last day of the agreed period. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the grounds for refusing the renewal of the contract, contrary

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

A. If a lessee continues to use a building even after the termination of a contract, and the lessor also deducts the amount equivalent to the future rent from the supply of services subject to value-added tax, barring any special circumstance, the amount equivalent to the value-added tax for unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent paid for the continuous possession after the termination of the lease contract should also be borne by the lessee, barring any special circumstance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da38828, Nov. 22, 2002).

B. In the same purport, the lower court determined that the Defendant should bear an amount equivalent to the value-added tax as well as the unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent corresponding to the rent incurred by continuing possession after the termination of the lease agreement, on the grounds that the Defendant agreed to pay the amount equivalent to the value-added tax on the monthly rent separately. Such determination by the lower court is based on the legal doctrine as seen earlier.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Ki-taik

Justices Kim Jong-soo