Law Firm L&S Partners

Attorney Han Sung-sung, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Law Firm Laton, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Attorney Lee Jae-han

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

2. The parties' assertion

The reasoning for this part of this Court is that the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance is identical to that of the judgment of the court of first instance (four to five pages). Thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Determination

A. As alleged by the Plaintiff, if the Defendant’s liability for damages under the Commercial Building Lease Act is established until the termination of the instant lease agreement, the Plaintiff’s act of refusing to enter into a lease agreement with the lessee, who is the lessee, without a justifiable reason, from six months to six months prior to the expiration of the lease term, must interfere with the collection of the Plaintiff’s premium (Article 10-4(1)4 and (3) of the Commercial Building Lease Act). Therefore, the instant lease agreement is renewed, and its validity has been maintained until October 5, 2018, the Plaintiff arranged to enter into a new lease agreement between the Defendant and F. 2). As such, the lessor of a commercial building does not lawfully refuse the Plaintiff’s request for renewal of the lease agreement between six months before the expiration of the lease term and one month before the expiration of the lease term without justifiable grounds, and the Plaintiff’s request for renewal of the lease agreement is deemed to have been concluded under the same condition as the previous lease agreement (Article 10-1(1)1 to 18(1) of the Commercial Building Lease Lease Act).

A) According to the written reply sent by the Plaintiff to C, etc. by content-certified mail on October 11, 2017, the Plaintiff responded to the effect that, on September 29, 2017, before receiving C, etc. a notice of termination due to the termination of the lease term, the Plaintiff requested C, etc. to renew the lease contract several times before receiving the said notice of termination, the validity of the lease contract cannot be denied.

B) According to the recording of telephone conversations between the Plaintiff and C during three times from October 12, 2017 to March 5, 2018, the Plaintiff continuously expressed that C would want to operate the instant store for the period during which the right to request the renewal of the contract is guaranteed pursuant to the Commercial Building Lease Act (five years at the time when the contract was concluded with the Plaintiff) prior to receiving the notice of termination on September 29, 2017, and C would be unlikely to recognize the succession of the lease contract from the Defendant as the Commercial Lease Act for five years (i.e.,, the lease contract was concluded, until October 10, 2018), which is guaranteed to the Plaintiff as the Commercial Lease Act, and the Plaintiff knew the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff can be deemed to have lawfully requested the renewal of the contract to C, the lessor of the instant store, at the time of the said conversation (the Plaintiff’s request for the renewal of the contract to C, the joint owner of the instant contract, at the time of signing the lease contract with the Plaintiff).

C) The Plaintiff continued to operate a female store at the instant store until October 5, 2018, while the Defendant received the ownership of the instant real estate, such as the instant store, etc. on November 17, 2017. G entrusted by the Defendant with the management of the instant real estate from the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the payment of monthly rent and management expenses each month in accordance with the instant lease agreement on December 2017. In fact, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Plaintiff for a new lease contract with F on December 5, 2017 (including additional tax 4.1 million won). The Defendant reviewed the possibility of concluding a new lease contract with F on the premise that the lease contract with the Plaintiff becomes effective (see evidence 7).

B. Whether the defendant interfered with the plaintiff's opportunity to recover the premium

1) Article 10-4 (1) of the Commercial Building Lease Act provides that "a lessee shall not interfere with the receipt of premium from a person who intends to become a new lessee arranged by the lessee pursuant to the premium contract by doing any of the following acts from six months to six months before the lease term expires, and Article 10-4 (1) of the same Act provides that a lessor shall not interfere with the receipt of premium from a person who intends to become a new lessee arranged by the lessee pursuant to the premium contract." Article 10-4 (1) 4 of the same Act provides that a lessor shall be one of the interference acts, and Article 10-4 (2) 1 and 2 of the same Act provides that "a person who intends to become a new lessee arranged by the lessee as a new lessee does not have sufficient means to pay the deposit or rent (Article 10-4 (1) 1) or a person who intends to become a new lessee arranged by the lessee is likely to violate his/her duty as a lessee or has any other substantial reason to maintain the lease (Article 2).

2) As seen earlier, the instant lease agreement was renewed until October 31, 2018, and the Plaintiff concluded the instant premium agreement with F on October 2, 2018, and requested the Defendant to conclude a new lease agreement with F on October 2, 2018, but the Defendant rejected the request on November 9, 2018 on the ground that F did not have the ability to pay a deposit or rent and could violate its duty as a lessee.

Comprehensively taking account of the aforementioned evidence and evidence Nos. 3 and 4, evidence Nos. 3 and 4, testimony of witness F of the first instance court, the result of the order to submit financial transaction information to H by the first instance court, and the following circumstances, which may be acknowledged by the entire purport of the pleadings, it is determined that F constitutes a case where there is no sufficient means to pay deposit or rent under the instant lease agreement, or a lessee is likely to violate his/her duty. Thus, it is recognized that the Defendant has justifiable grounds for refusing to enter into a lease agreement with F, and there is no other evidence to recognize that the Defendant has interfered with the Plaintiff’s payment of the premium. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim for damages against the Defendant without the need to examine

A) As a new lessee, F paid KRW 230 million to the Plaintiff in addition to the rent of KRW 130 million per month for the instant store and KRW 4.1 million per month.

B) The F is a woman supporting two children who are high school students alone without her husband, who work as an employee of an insurance company at the time of November 2018, and were paid approximately KRW 2.5 million monthly wage. On November 2, 2017, the F was living in one’s own house (Seoul Southernbuk-gu J underground floor) equivalent to KRW 90 million in the transaction value as of November 2, 2017, but the said house was completed registration of the establishment of a mortgage over the creditor corporation H as of November 27, 2017, and it appears that there was no other property, such as the balance sheet, etc. Even if the F retires from the insurance company, the retirement allowance is equivalent to approximately KRW 17 million, and there was no special amount of credit loans that can be granted.

C) On October 23, 2018, F: (a) on October 22, 2018, the Defendant submitted to the Defendant a certificate of account balance of KRW 196,255,702 worth of KRW 46,255,702 and KRW 150,000,000,000 in the savings deposit account as of October 22, 2018; (b) however, on October 22, 2018, the Plaintiff’s wife transferred KRW 190,000,000 to the savings bank account as of KRW 15,000,000 from the Plaintiff’s wife and issued a certificate of balance to each of the above accounts; (c) the Plaintiff’s certificate of balance was the most caused by the Plaintiff and F, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff’s money was actually paid out of KRW 300,000,000,000 in the instant case’s premium contract.

D) Meanwhile, while the F stated that it sought to operate a new and clothing sales store by leasing the instant store, it does not seem that the F had particular career experience or prepared a specific business plan.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is justifiable in terms of the conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

For the purpose of judge sex impulse

Judges Kim Jae-sung

Commercial Building Lease Protection Act (Law No. 16912, Feb. 4, 2020) was entitled to exercise the right to request renewal of the contract only to the extent of such right.

Article 10 (2) of the previous Amendment)

2) If the F becomes a new lessee of the instant store in the examination of the witness in the first instance court, the F shall appear to have leased KRW 130 million to the Defendant.

I stated that the premium should be paid.