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

A. On June 6, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on the condition that the lease deposit is KRW 100 million for the remainder-dong and the total area of 373.1mi (hereinafter “instant store”) of the total area of the 1st floor in the south-dong and the 2nd floor of the 338.48m neighborhood living facilities of the 3rd East-gu general steel structure (reficial concrete branch roof) and the 373.4m (hereinafter “the instant lease agreement”) from the Defendant during the first one year of the contract, and the rent is KRW 5 million per month during the lease period, and the lease period is from June 13, 2011 to June 12, 2016 (hereinafter “the instant lease agreement”).

B. Around that time, the Plaintiff operated a restaurant with the trade name called “D” after being transferred to the instant store by the Defendant.

C. On March 2, 2016, which was three months before the expiration of the lease term of the instant lease agreement, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the instant lease agreement by telephone that the instant lease agreement was terminated on or around June 13, 2016.

D. On March 7 of the same year, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a content-certified mail stating that “Around March 7 of the same year, the Plaintiff had set up the instant store as a thing in the real estate brokerage office and want to be guaranteed the premium.”

(C) According to the Postal Delivery Council, the above postal service seems to have been returned.

E. After that, on March 10, 2016 and March 23, 2016, the Defendant sent a content-certified mail stating that “the Plaintiff” was terminated on June 13, 2016, and that the instant lease contract was terminated on two occasions, and each of the said postal services reached the Plaintiff on the following day.

F. On the other hand, on March 19, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with E to transfer goodwill, including the facility of the instant store under the instant lease agreement, for a premium of KRW 250 million (hereinafter “the instant premium contract”).

G. After that, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant seeking the prohibition of interference with the collection of premium on March 28 of the same year and the Defendant, even though the Plaintiff entered into the instant premium contract with the person who will be a new lessee in physical color, the Plaintiff did not cooperate in the collection of premium on the premium. The duplicate of the complaint was served on April 1 of the same year on the Defendant.

H. On April 4, 2016, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff a copy of the instant complaint, and became aware of the fact that the instant premium contract was concluded, and the Defendant, as a matter of course, visited F real estate brokerage offices to the effect that, unless the Plaintiff’s right is infringed on, the remainder of the Plaintiff’s contract, who is a lessee, sent a document evidencing that, “The Plaintiff shall be bound to enter into the contract, unless the Plaintiff’s right is infringed on.” The said mail sent to

I. On April 17, 2016, the Defendant consulted with the Plaintiff at the F Real Estate Brokerage Office on the terms and conditions of concluding a new lease agreement with E on the instant store. However, the Defendant refused the agreement between the Plaintiff and E (hereinafter referred to as “the Plaintiff”) even though it proposed that the lease deposit amount of KRW 200 million is KRW 150 million, monthly rent of KRW 12 million, and monthly rent of KRW 8 million, which was partially reduced by the Defendant, but did not reach an agreement by the Plaintiff.

(k) On June 12, 2016, the appraised value of the instant real estate as of June 12, 2016 is KRW 159,96,000 (i.e., KRW 58,450,000 + KRW 101,516,000).

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1 through 4, 6, 8, 9, each entry (including each number), the result of the appraiser's premium appraisal commission against appraiser G, the whole purport of the pleading

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion

According to Article 10-4 of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Commercial Building Lease Protection Act"), the Plaintiff entered into a premium contract with E in order to recover the premium for the store of this case, and requested the Defendant to enter into a lease contract. However, the Defendant requested E to set up a deposit and monthly rent much more than the surrounding market price, and caused the Plaintiff to interfere with the collection of the premium by failing to enter into the lease contract.

Therefore, the defendant bears the duty not to prevent the plaintiff from receiving the premium from E pursuant to the premium contract of this case pursuant to Article 10-4 (1) of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act. Thus, the plaintiff seeks a prohibition of interference to the defendant, and the plaintiff seeks a compensation for damages amounting to KRW 250 million,00,000,000, which is the amount equivalent to the premium paid by the plaintiff to E pursuant to paragraph

B. Determination

(1) Whether the Defendant bears the duty not to interfere with the collection of premiums

First of all, we examine whether the Defendant bears the obligation not to obstruct the collection of premium in accordance with Article 10-4 of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act with respect to the instant lease agreement.

(A) According to the main sentence of Article 10-4(1) of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act, a lessor shall not demand a person arranged by a lessee to become a new lessee from three months before the lease term expires until the termination of the lease: ① to demand a premium from a person arranged by a lessee to become a new lessee; ② to prevent a person arranged by a lessee from paying the premium to a new lessee; ③ to demand a person arranged by a lessee to become a new lessee; ③ to demand a rent and deposit from a person arranged by a lessee to become a new lessee; ④ to demand a significant amount of rent and deposit in light of the amount of taxes on commercial buildings, public charges, rents and deposits for surrounding commercial buildings; ④ to refuse to conclude a lease contract with a person arranged by a lessee to become a new lessee; and under Article 10-4(3) of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act, a lessor shall not interfere with receiving the premium from a person arranged by a lessee to become a new lessee; and under Article 10-4(3) of the same Act, a lessee shall be liable to compensate for any damage caused by a violation of paragraph (1).

However, Article 10(1) of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act (amended by Act No. 13284, May 13, 2015) provides that the right to request renewal of the contract of a tenant shall be exercised only within the extent of five years including the initial term of lease, and the right to request renewal of the contract of a tenant may be exercised in cases where the tenant collects the capital invested in the leased object for his/her business, and the market value formed by the tenant for the renewal of the lease contract is to protect the tenant's business value and at the same time to protect the tenant's opportunity to recover capital and dispose of business by investing in the leased object. (2) Article 10(1) of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act provides that the tenant may not refuse the tenant's right to request renewal of the contract of a tenant without justifiable grounds if the tenant's right to request renewal of the contract exceeds five years from the beginning, and Article 10(1) of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act provides that the tenant's right to request renewal of the contract of a tenant can be more than the lessee's right to request renewal of the contract.

(B) With respect to the instant case, the following circumstances, i.e., (i) the lease term of the instant lease from June 13, 201 to June 12, 2016, is within the minimum lease term guaranteed by the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act; and (ii) there is room to deem that the Plaintiff’s invested capital was sufficiently recovered, barring any special circumstance, and (iii) the Defendant, on March 2, 2016, issued a new statement of intent to refuse the renewal of the lease contract to the Plaintiff on March 10, 2016, under the premise that the lease contract was terminated by the Plaintiff on June 13, 201 and June 12, 2016. However, the Plaintiff did not appear to have been able to request the Plaintiff to renew the lease contract on the premise that the lease contract was terminated on March 7, 2016.

Therefore, even if the defendant refused to enter into a lease agreement with the new lessee arranged by the plaintiff, the defendant cannot be held liable for damages due to the violation of the obligation not to obstruct the collection of premiums.

(2) Whether the Defendant interfered with collecting premiums

In addition, it is examined whether the Plaintiff interfered with receiving premiums from E in accordance with the premium contract in this case by refusing to conclude a new lease contract with the Defendant without justifiable grounds, such as demanding a significantly high rent and deposit.

피고가 원고 측에게 신규임차인인 E과의 임대차계약 체결의 조건으로 임대차보증금 2억 원, 월 차임 1,200만 원을 제안하였으나 원고 측에서 이를 거절하였고, 다시 피고가 일부 감액된 금액인 임대차보증금 1억 5,000만 원 및 월 차임 800만 원을 제안하였으나 원고 측과 여전히 합의가 이루어지지 아니하던 중 원고와 E 사이의 이 사건 권리금계약이 파기된 사실은 앞서 본 바와 같고, 피고가 이 사건 권리금계약의 체결 경위나 그 진정성, E의 자력 등을 다투면서 E과의 새로운 임대차계약의 체결을 거절한 사실은 기록상 명백하다. 여기에다가, 앞서 본 증거들 및 변론 전체의 취지에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정들, 즉 ① 피고는 원고와 E 사이에 이 사건 권리금 계약이 체결되기 전인 2016. 3. 2.경부터 이미 원고에게 이 사건 임대차계약의 갱신을 거절한다는 의사를 밝혀왔고, 그 무렵 원고가 새로운 임차인을 물색하고 있다는 사정을 알지는 못하였던 점, ② 원고는 그 후 2016. 3. 19.경에 이르러 비로소 E과 사이에 이 사건 권리금계약을 체결하였다면서, 그로부터 약 9일 뒤인 2016. 3. 28. 이 사건 소를 제기하였는데, 그 과정에서 피고에게 이 사건 권리금계약의 체결 경위에 대해 알려 주거나 E을 신규임차인으로 한 임대차계약의 체결을 요구한 바도 없는 것으로 보이는 점, ③ 또한 원고는 임대인인 피고에게 신규임차인이 되려는 E이 보증금 및 차임을 지급할 자력이 있는지 여부 또는 그 밖에 임차인으로서의 의무를 이행할 의사 및 능력이 있는지 여부에 관하여 자신이 알고 있는 정보를 제공하지도 아니한 점(상가임대차보호법 제10조의4 제5항), ④ 원고가 당초 E과 약정한 권리금으로 피고에게 보장해 달라고 요구한 이 사건 권리금 2억 5,000만 원은 이 사건 임대차계약 종결 당시의 권리금 감정가액인 159,966,000원의 약 1.6배에 달하는 금액으로 실제 이 사건 점포의 영업에 따른 유·무형의 재산적 가치보다 과장되었다고 볼 여지가 있는 점, ⑤ 피고는 이 사건 소송이 계속되는 중에도 E을 만나 정보를 수집하는 등 새로운 임대차계약의 체결을 위해 나름대로의 노력을 기울인 것으로 보이는 점 등을 종합하여 보면, 임대인인 피고로서는 이 사건 권리금계약이 체결된 경위나 신규임차인이 되려는 E이나 그 권리금의 적정성에 대한 아무런 정보가 없는 상황에서 권리금이 산정된 과정 및 그 기준에 대해 의문을 가지거나 E과의 임대차계약의 체결을 망설이는 것이 상당한 것으로 보이고, 따라서 피고가 원고와 E 사이에 이 사건 권리금계약이 체결된 사실을 인정하지 아니한 채 그 체결 경위나 진정성 등에 대해 다투었다는 사정만으로 정당한 사유 없이 이 사건 임대차계약의 체결을 거절하였다고 단정할 수는 없다. 또한, 피고가 E과의 새로운 임대차계약 체결의 조건으로 최종적으로 제시한 보증금 1억 5,000만 원 및 월 차임800만 원은 당초 원고와 사이에 체결한 이 사건 임대차계약의 보증금 1억 원 및 월 차임 500만 원보다 높은 가액이기는 하나, 상가임대차보호법 제10조 제1항, 제2항에 의하면 임대차기간이 5년을 경과하면 임대인은 종전 임차인과의 임대차계약 체결을 거절하고 새로운 임차인을 구할 수 있을 뿐만 아니라 임대조건 역시 임대인의 결정에 따라 변경할 수 있으므로, 임대인으로서는 스스로의 결정에 의하여 시세보다 높다고 하더라도 자신이 원하는 조건으로 임차인을 구할 수 있고 이러한 측면에서 보았을 때 전체 임대차기간이 5년이 경과한 시점에서 피고가 당초 임대료보다 높은 가액을 요구한 것만 가지고 상가건물에 관한 조세, 공과금, 주변 상가건물의 차임 및 보증금, 그 밖의 부담에 따른 금액에 비추어 현저히 고액의 보증금 등을 요구하였다거나 부당하게 원고의 권리금 회수기회를 박탈하였다고 보기 어렵다. 결국, 앞서 인정한 사실만으로 원고가 상가건물 임대차보호법 제10조의4 제1항 제3호, 제4호에 규정된 권리금 회수기회를 방해하는 행위를 하였다고 보기 어렵고 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없다.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Yellow-gu

Judges Park Gon-mo