The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant).

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. After compiling the adopted evidence, the lower court acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning, and determined that, as the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) who is a lessor of the instant building refused to enter into a lease agreement with the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) acting as a new lessee without any justifiable reason, the lower court, pursuant to Article 10-4(1) and (3) of the former Commercial Building Lease Protection Act (amended by Act No. 15791, Oct. 16, 2018), held that the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) is liable to compensate for damages due to interference with the collection of premiums equivalent to the cited amount as indicated in its holding.

In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the requirements for recognition of liability for damages due to interference with the collection of the premium under the former Commercial Building Lease Protection Act,

2. Therefore, the appeal is 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 on the bench.