All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, in light of the language and content of Article 10-4 of the former Commercial Building Lease Protection Act (amended by Act No. 15791, Oct. 16, 2018; hereinafter “former Commercial Building Lease Protection Act”), and the legislative intent, in cases where a lessee is unable to exercise the right to request the renewal of a contract for more than five years pursuant to Article 10(2) of the former Commercial Building Lease Protection Act, the lessor is obligated to protect the opportunity to recover the premium pursuant to Article 10-4(1) of the same Act, even if the lease period including the initial lease period

[See Supreme Court Decision 2017Da225312, 225329 (Counterclaim) Decided May 16, 2019 (see Supreme Court Decision 2017Da225312, 225329). Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court rejected the Defendants’ assertion that, in the instant lease agreement, the lessor (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”) did not bear the duty of prohibiting interference with the collection of the premium under Article 10-4 of the former Commercial Building Lease Act against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles on the requirements for the duty to protect a lessor to recover the premium under Article 10-4(1) of the former Commercial

2. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, the lower court rejected the Defendants’ assertion that there is justifiable reason to refuse to conclude a lease agreement with a new lessee on the grounds as stated in its reasoning.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on justifiable grounds under Article 10-4 (2) 3 of the former Commercial Building Lease Act

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.