부동산인도
1. Of the part concerning the counterclaim in the judgment of the court of first instance, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) who exceeds the following amount ordering payment.
1. The reasoning for this part of the facts of recognition is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act
2. Judgment on the counterclaim
A. According to the facts acknowledged prior to the establishment of liability for damages due to interference with the collection of premiums, the evidence revealed prior to the establishment of liability for damages, and the testimony of the witness C of this court, it is recognized that the Defendant concluded a commercial building lease premium contract with the Nonparty on June 13, 2016 on the real estate of this case on June 13, 2016, prior to the expiration of the lease term of this case. The Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the said premium contract was concluded, and requested the Nonparty to conclude the lease contract on the real estate of this case, but the Plaintiff did not provide any response thereto.
The Plaintiff’s attitude is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff’s refusal to enter into a lease agreement with the Nonparty arranged by the Defendant, and this constitutes an act that the lessor refuses to enter into a lease agreement with a person who wishes to become a new lessee arranged by the lessee without justifiable grounds prescribed by Article 10-4(1)4 of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act (hereinafter “Commercial Building Lease Protection Act”).
Therefore, pursuant to Article 10(3) of the Commercial Building Lease Act, the Plaintiff is responsible for compensating the Defendant for the damages incurred by the Defendant due to interference with the collection of the Plaintiff’s premium.
B. On this point, the plaintiff asserts that in the case of the lease of this case, the contract renewal cannot be demanded by the defendant pursuant to Article 10 (2) of the Commercial Building Lease Act after five years of the total period of the lease of this case. Thus, the plaintiff's obligation not to prevent the interference with the collection of the premium by the plaintiff pursuant to Article
(1) However, the Commercial Building Lease Act is an exception to the duty not to interfere with the lessor's collection of premiums under the proviso of Article 10-4 (1).