Plaintiff (Attorney Han-jin, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant

September 5, 2018

Suwon District Court Decision 2016Da123813 decided November 15, 2017

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 39,00,000 won with 15% interest per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows: " from EP development" of No. 11 of the first instance court's second part of the second instance court's judgment; "The 70,000,000 won for lease deposit" of No. 14 of the same face "The 72,000,000 won for lease deposit"; "the 37,000,000 won for lease deposit" of No. 30 of the third face No. 10 shall be "the 39,00,000 won for lease deposit"; and the list of the documents attached to the judgment of the court of the first instance shall be attached to the plaintiff's argument at the court of the first instance; therefore, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

The Plaintiff stated that the Plaintiff was scheduled to operate a coffee shop by her own children without the lease upon the expiration of the lease term to the Plaintiff, and even if the Plaintiff had arranged for a new lessee, it was apparent that the lessor would have refused to conclude the lease contract with him and failed to arrange for a new lessee by suspending physical coloring. Therefore, in light of the legislative intent of Article 10-4 of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act and the principle of equity, the Plaintiff asserts that the lessor is liable to compensate for damages equivalent to the premium even in such cases.

According to the statement of No. 3, it is recognized that the defendant sent to the plaintiff a certificate of content that "if the commercial building of this case is named, it will be directly used by the person in question" around October 20, 2016.

However, it is difficult to readily conclude, solely with the above expression of intention, that it would immediately refuse to enter into a lease agreement with the new lessee, and even if the Defendant expressed his/her intent to refuse to enter into a lease agreement with the new lessee, the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act lists only the act of interfering with the collection of premiums as seen earlier, and as long as the type of such act is premised on the fact that the lessee was appointed as a new lessee, the above provision of the Act is applied even if the Plaintiff did not act as a new lessee, and thus, the Defendant cannot be deemed liable for damages, even if the Plaintiff did not act as an agent for the new lessee, and the other circumstances incurred by the Plaintiff do not

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed for the reason that it is without merit, and since the judgment of the first instance court sharing the conclusion is justifiable, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed for the reason that it is without merit, and it is so decided as per

[Attachment]

Judges Jin Jae-hun (Presiding Judge)