beta
Text
1. All appeals filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and the Defendants are dismissed.
2. The appeal cost is the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: (a) except where the judgment on the counterclaim claim filed by Defendant B, C, D, and E (hereinafter “Defendant B, etc.”) is reversed as prescribed in paragraph (2), and thus, (b) is identical to the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (c) such judgment is cited
2. Judgment on the counterclaim
A. The gist of the assertion by Defendant B, etc. is as follows: (a) the Plaintiff refused to renew the instant lease agreement without justifiable grounds and clearly expresses his intention not to conclude a new lease agreement with Defendant B, etc.; and (b) obstructed the collection of the premium for the instant store by Defendant B, etc.; (c) thus, Defendant B, etc. is liable to compensate for damages under Article 10-4(3) of the former Commercial Building Lease Protection Act (amended by Act No. 15791, Oct. 16, 2018; hereinafter “Commercial Building Lease Protection Act”).
B. In light of the language, content, and legislative intent of Article 10-4 of the Commercial Building Lease Act, in cases where a lessee is unable to exercise the right to request the renewal of a contract beyond the period stipulated in Article 10(2) of the Commercial Building Lease Act, the lessor is obliged to protect the opportunity to recover the premium under Article 10-4(1) of the same Act.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2017Da225312, 225329, May 16, 2019, etc.). In addition, in light of the content and legislative intent of Articles 10-3 through 10-7 of the Commercial Building Lease Act, the lessee should have, in principle, arranged a person who intends to become a new lessee to seek damages due to interference with the collection of the premium to the lessor.
However, if the lessor acted on behalf of the lessee to become a new lessee without any justifiable reason, it would be unreasonable to require the lessee to act as a new lessee even in such a case.