2017Da233955 Building name drawings

A

C

Gwangju District Court Decision 2016Na55826 Decided May 12, 2017

August 24, 2017

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gwangju District Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the allegation in the grounds of appeal regarding the right to request renewal as stipulated in the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act, the court below rejected the Defendant’s assertion that the lease contract concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was renewed on October 20, 2013, and that the initial date of the initial lease period was October 19, 2007, and the lessee’s right to request renewal of the lease contract can only be exercised within the extent of five years including the initial lease period, and the entire lease period can only be extended within the extent of five years, and the above lease contract concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was renewed upon the Defendant’s renewal request. Examining the foregoing reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the tenant’s exercise of the right to request renewal of the contract as stipulated in Article 10 of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act, or by misapprehending logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles as to the tenant’s exercise of the right to request renewal of the lease contract, the court below decided 2010.

However, in the statement of grounds of appeal dated October 7, 2016, the Defendant asserted that the lease deposit amount of KRW 30 million and the delivery of the building of this case should be made at the same time, and it is clear that the above statement of grounds of appeal was made at the first day of pleading of the lower court.

Therefore, the lower court should have deliberated on the overdue rent to be deducted from the lease deposit under the lease contract concluded by the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and the amount of unjust enrichment from the continuous use after the termination of the lease, and ordered the Defendant to deliver the instant building at the same time with the payment of the remainder of the lease deposit after deducting the overdue rent from the Defendant. Nevertheless, the lower court erred by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations on the allegations by the parties and failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations.

3. Conclusion

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.

2. Judgment of the presiding judge

Justices Kim Yong-deok

Justices Kim In-bok, Counsel for defendant

Justices Park Sang-ok