1. In accordance with Article 10-4(1) and (3) of the former Commercial Building Lease Protection Act (amended by Act No. 15791, Oct. 16, 2018; hereinafter “former Commercial Building Lease Protection Act”), the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) filed a claim against the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”) for damages due to interference with the collection of premium, and the lower court dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal by citing the reasoning of the first instance judgment rejecting the Plaintiff’s claim.

2. In light of the language and content of Article 10-4 of the former Commercial Building Lease Act, and the legislative intent thereof, even if a lessee is unable to exercise the right to request the renewal of a contract for the whole period including the initial period of lease pursuant to Article 10(2) of the former Commercial Building Lease Act, the lessor shall bear the duty to protect the opportunity to recover the premium under Article 10-4(1) of the same Act

[See Supreme Court Decision 2017Da225312, 225329 (Counterclaim) Decided May 16, 2019] Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the legal doctrine as seen earlier, since the Plaintiff arranged a new lessee from three months to three months after the expiration of the lease term pursuant to Article 10-4(1) of the former Commercial Building Lease Act, the Defendant cannot refuse to enter into a lease contract with a new lessee without justifiable grounds, and the same applies where the entire lease term between the Plaintiff and the Defendant has expired five years.

Therefore, the lower court’s rejection of the Plaintiff’s claim is erroneous by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the requirements for protection of a lessor’s duty to recover premiums under Article 10-4(1) of the former Commercial Building Lease Act, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion

The ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.