In a case where Party A, who was operating a pharmacy on a commercial building, concluded a premium contract with Party B, who would be a new lessee prior to the termination of the lease contract, and would be entitled to rent the pharmacy, but C, who was the owner of the building, demanded Party B to submit a pharmacist’s qualification certificate, family relation certificate, deposit balance certificate, pharmacy operation plan, etc. in the course of consultation on the lease contract, and consultation on the lease contract was concluded by presenting the increased amount of more than 40% compared to the previous monthly rent as a condition of the contract, the case holding that Party C, etc. cannot be recognized liability for damages due to interference with Party A’s collection of premium under Article 10-4 of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act after the lease contract was terminated, on the ground that Party A’s interference with the collection of premium for the lease contract.

In a case where Gap, who was operating a pharmacy on a commercial building, concluded a premium contract with Eul who would be a new lessee prior to the expiration of the lease contract, to arrange for the lease of the pharmacy and receive premium, but Byung, the owner of the building, demanded Eul to submit a pharmacist’s qualification certificate, family relation certificate, deposit balance certificate, pharmacy operation plan, etc. in the course of consultation on the lease contract, and consultation on the lease contract has ended after presenting the increased amount of more than 40% compared to the existing monthly rent as the condition of the contract, the case holding that it is difficult to recognize Eul’s liability for damages for interference with the collection of the premium stipulated in Article 10-4 (hereinafter “Protection Regulation”) of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act after the termination of the lease contract, on the ground that Eul’s act of interference with the collection of the premium under Article 10-4 (2) of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act (hereinafter “The Protection Regulation”), even if the first lease term including the above lease term is not recognized pursuant to Article 10 (2) of the Commercial Lease Protection Act, the said provision cannot be seen as being applied to Byung’s.

Articles 2, 10, 10-3, 10-4(1), (2), (3), and (5) of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act, Articles 1, 2, and 3 of the Addenda ( May 13, 2015)

Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant, Appointed Party) (Attorney Kim Sung-sung, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant-Counterclaim (Attorney Lee Dong-woo, Counsel for defendant-Counterclaim)

Daegu District Court Decision 2015Gahap3796, 2016Gahap114 Decided September 1, 2016

July 6, 2017

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. It is confirmed that there is no obligation, such as premium, damages, and interest thereon, arising from the delivery of the portion on the ship connecting each point of 118.8 square meters in sequence of the attached Table 1, among the 1st floor of the building listed in the attached Table 1 list with respect to the Defendant (Counterclaim Defendant, Appointed Party, and Lessee) of the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and the designated Plaintiff 2.

3. The defendant-Counterclaim plaintiff's counterclaim is dismissed.

4. The total cost of the lawsuit is borne by the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff.

1. Purport of claim

(a) Main claim;

Paragraph 2 of this Article.

(b) Counterclaim;

The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant, the appointed party, the plaintiff hereinafter referred to as the "Plaintiff") and the appointed party 2 (hereinafter referred to as the "appointed party") jointly and severally pay 89,870,000 won to the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff, the defendant hereinafter referred to as the "defendant") at the rate of 15% per annum from the day following the day of service of a copy of the application for change of claim and cause of claim of the counterclaim of this case to the day of complete payment.

2. Purport of appeal

The same shall apply to the order.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10 (including the numbers of serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 7.

A. The Plaintiff and the designated person are the co-owners of the buildings listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “instant building”) with the husband and wife, and the Defendant is the one who leased out of Nonparty 1, the former owner of the instant building, the part on the ship connecting each point of the attached sheet No. 2, B, C, and D (hereinafter “instant pharmacy”).

B. On July 31, 2008, Nonparty 1, the owner of the instant building, entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on a deposit of KRW 100,00,000 for the instant pharmacy, monthly rent of KRW 2,50,000 for the instant pharmacy, and the lease term of KRW 2,50,000 for the instant pharmacy from August 1, 2008 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”), and around that time, delivered the said building part to the Defendant, and the instant lease agreement has been continuously renewed thereafter.

C. On September 30, 2014, the Plaintiff and the designated parties purchased the instant building from Nonparty 1, and completed the registration of ownership transfer by joint ownership between the Plaintiff and the designated parties on November 11, 2014. Meanwhile, the special terms attached to the said contract at the time of the said contract include the instant lease agreement, and include the following details as to the lease of the instant building, including the instant lease agreement:

3. Lease Deposit and existing loans shall be deducted from the balance; 5. The rent shall be settled on the basis of the balance date; 14. Lease Details are the same as the current status table.

D. On June 23, 2015, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a certificate of content that “The instant lease agreement is terminated as of July 31, 2015, to notify whether it will extend the contract. If the Plaintiff wishes to extend the contract, the deposit must be increased to KRW 100,00,000, and monthly rent to KRW 3,500,000 (including surtax).” On July 2, 2015, the Plaintiff sent a reply from the Defendant, and again sent a certificate of content that “The instant lease agreement is terminated as of July 31, 2015, and delivered the instant pharmacy to the Defendant by July 31, 2015.”

E. Meanwhile, the Defendant concluded a premium contract with Nonparty 2, which is arranged by the Defendant to rent Nonparty 2 the instant pharmacy to Nonparty 2, and concluded a premium contract with KRW 100,000,00 in order for Nonparty 2 to rent the instant pharmacy. On July 3, 2015, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff a certificate demanding that the Plaintiff be able to interfere with the Defendant’s opportunity to recover the premium and reached around that time.

F. On July 6, 2015, the Plaintiff issued a certificate of contents to the Defendant, and proposed a consultation on the lease agreement with the new lessee along with the new lessee, and indicated “the original copy of the premium contract, a copy of the pharmacist’s certificate, a pharmacist’s career certificate, a certificate of value added tax in 2014, a certificate of income tax payment in 2015, a certificate of property tax payment in 2014, a family relation certificate, a certificate of national tax and local tax payment, an original certificate of balance of deposits in the new lessee’s name, a short-term operation plan and a long-term plan of the pharmacy.” Accordingly, the Plaintiff and the selected parties and the Defendant, and Nonparty 2 consulted only on the instant building on July 18, 2015, Nonparty 2 demanded that the deposit raised by 20% for the previous month, and Nonparty 3,000,000 won for the monthly rent and 3,000 won for the above 300,000 won and 300.

G. On July 21, 2015, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a certificate of the content that Nonparty 2’s notification is inappropriate to a new lessee on the ground that “Non-Party 2 is deemed to lack of sufficient means to pay the deposit and rent (the submission of a certificate of deposit balance, entirely dependent on the parent’s funds), and the lessee’s intent and ability to perform his/her obligations is deemed insufficient (no reference was made to the short-term plan for the operation of the pharmacy, a long-term plan for the operation of the pharmacy, a person’s opinion regarding the opening of the pharmacy, a future notification, and future vision, etc.).”

H. On May 25, 2016, the Plaintiff, a pharmacist, left the hospital at ○○○○○○○ Hospital, who had worked until around May 25, 2016, returned the deposit to the Defendant on May 26, 2016, and was handed over the instant pharmacy from the Defendant. The Plaintiff registered the business of the instant pharmacy on May 27, 2016, and operated the pharmacy from around that time.

I. After receiving the instant pharmacy’s delivery, the Plaintiff leased the instant pharmacy divided into KRW 10,00,000 as deposit and KRW 450,00 as monthly rent (Additional Tax) on September 21, 2016. The Plaintiff leased the said pharmacy to Nonparty 3, on December 19, 2016, a deposit of KRW 10,000,000, and KRW 2,500,000 as monthly rent (Additional Tax) after having run the pharmacy directly at the divided pharmacy. After closing the business on December 19, 206, the Plaintiff leased the said pharmacy divided into KRW 450,00 (Additional Tax).

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The Plaintiff and the designated parties are not parties to the instant lease agreement, and the deposit of the instant lease agreement is more than the deposit stipulated under the Enforcement Decree of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act, and the Defendant cannot invoke the opposing power stipulated under the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act (hereinafter “Commercial Building Lease Act”). Thus, the Defendant cannot assert the application of the provisions on protecting the opportunity to recover the premium under Article 10-4 of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act (hereinafter “the instant protection provisions”) on the premise that the lease agreement is in existence.

2) The instant lease agreement is concluded on July 31, 2008, and the Defendant cannot demand renewal of the lease agreement, and thus, the instant protection provision does not apply thereto.

3) Even if the Commercial Building Lease Act is applicable, the rent requested by Nonparty 2, who is the Plaintiff to become a new lessee, was realized that there was no increase in the rent for the past several years, and thus does not constitute a demand for a very large amount of rent. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant interfered with the opportunity to recover the premium.

B. Defendant’s assertion

1) The Plaintiff and the appointed parties agreed to comprehensively succeed to the lessor’s status while purchasing the instant building from Nonparty 1, a lessor, the former owner of the instant building, and thus, constitutes a lessor of the instant lease agreement. Since the instant lease agreement was in existence at the time of the enforcement of the amended Commercial Building Lease Act, the Defendant may invoke the protection provisions of the instant lease agreement.

2) Even if five years have elapsed since the term of the instant lease agreement, the instant protection provision applies.

3) The Plaintiff demanded Nonparty 2 who intends to be a new lessee in the intention to operate the pharmacy directly at the instant pharmacy to submit various documents not prescribed in the Act, thereby hindering the collection of the Defendant’s premium, and thus, is liable to compensate for damages therefrom.

3. Determination

A. Relevant provisions

The provisions related to the issues of this case in the Commercial Building Lease Act are as follows, and the provisions of Article 10-3 and Article 10-4 on the premium have been amended by Act No. 13284 on May 13, 2015.

본문내 포함된 표 제2조(적용범위) ① 이 법은 상가건물(제3조제1항에 따른 사업자등록의 대상이 되는 건물을 말한다)의 임대차(임대차 목적물의 주된 부분을 영업용으로 사용하는 경우를 포함한다)에 대하여 적용한다. 다만, 대통령령으로 정하는 보증금액을 초과하는 임대차에 대하여는 그러하지 아니하다. ③ 제1항 단서에도 불구하고 제3조, 제10조제1항, 제2항, 제3항 본문, 제10조의2부터 제10조의8까지의 규정 및 제19조는 제1항 단서에 따른 보증금액을 초과하는 임대차에 대하여도 적용한다. 제10조(계약갱신 요구 등) ① 임대인은 임차인이 임대차기간이 만료되기 6개월 전부터 1개월 전까지 사이에 계약갱신을 요구할 경우 정당한 사유 없이 거절하지 못한다. 다만, 다음 각 호의 어느 하나의 경우에는 그러하지 아니하다. 1. 임차인이 3기의 차임액에 해당하는 금액에 이르도록 차임을 연체한 사실이 있는 경우 2. 임차인이 거짓이나 그 밖의 부정한 방법으로 임차한 경우 3. 서로 합의하여 임대인이 임차인에게 상당한 보상을 제공한 경우 4. 임차인이 임대인의 동의 없이 목적 건물의 전부 또는 일부를 전대(전대)한 경우 5. 임차인이 임차한 건물의 전부 또는 일부를 고의나 중대한 과실로 파손한 경우 6. 임차한 건물의 전부 또는 일부가 멸실되어 임대차의 목적을 달성하지 못할 경우 7. 임대인이 다음 각 목의 어느 하나에 해당하는 사유로 목적 건물의 전부 또는 대부분을 철거하거나 재건축하기 위하여 목적 건물의 점유를 회복할 필요가 있는 경우 가. 임대차계약 체결 당시 공사시기 및 소요기간 등을 포함한 철거 또는 재건축 계획을 임차인에게 구체적으로 고지하고 그 계획에 따르는 경우 나. 건물이 노후·훼손 또는 일부 멸실되는 등 안전사고의 우려가 있는 경우 다. 다른 법령에 따라 철거 또는 재건축이 이루어지는 경우 8. 그 밖에 임차인이 임차인으로서의 의무를 현저히 위반하거나 임대차를 계속하기 어려운 중대한 사유가 있는 경우 ② 임차인의 계약갱신요구권은 최초의 임대차기간을 포함한 전체 임대차기간이 5년을 초과하지 아니하는 범위에서만 행사할 수 있다. 제10조의3(권리금의 정의 등) ① 권리금이란 임대차 목적물인 상가건물에서 영업을 하는 자 또는 영업을 하려는 자가 영업시설·비품, 거래처, 신용, 영업상의 노하우, 상가건물의 위치에 따른 영업상의 이점 등 유형·무형의 재산적 가치의 양도 또는 이용대가로서 임대인, 임차인에게 보증금과 차임 이외에 지급하는 금전 등의 대가를 말한다. ② 권리금 계약이란 신규임차인이 되려는 자가 임차인에게 권리금을 지급하기로 하는 계약을 말한다. 제10조의4(권리금 회수기회 보호 등) ① 임대인은 임대차기간이 끝나기 3개월 전부터 임대차 종료 시까지 다음 각 호의 어느 하나에 해당하는 행위를 함으로써 권리금 계약에 따라 임차인이 주선한 신규임차인이 되려는 자로부터 권리금을 지급받는 것을 방해하여서는 아니 된다. 다만, 제10조 제1항 각 호의 어느 하나에 해당하는 사유가 있는 경우에는 그러하지 아니하다. 1. 임차인이 주선한 신규임차인이 되려는 자에게 권리금을 요구하거나 임차인이 주선한 신규임차인이 되려는 자로부터 권리금을 수수하는 행위 2. 임차인이 주선한 신규임차인이 되려는 자로 하여금 임차인에게 권리금을 지급하지 못하게 하는 행위 3. 임차인이 주선한 신규임차인이 되려는 자에게 상가건물에 관한 조세, 공과금, 주변상가건물의 차임 및 보증금, 그 밖의 부담에 따른 금액에 비추어 현저히 고액의 차임과 보증금을 요구하는 행위 4. 그 밖에 정당한 사유 없이 임대인이 임차인이 주선한 신규임차인이 되려는 자와 임대차계약의 체결을 거절하는 행위 ② 다음 각 호의 어느 하나에 해당하는 경우에는 제1항 제4호의 정당한 사유가 있는 것으로 본다. 1. 임차인이 주선한 신규임차인이 되려는 자가 보증금 또는 차임을 지급할 자력이 없는 경우 2. 임차인이 주선한 신규임차인이 되려는 자가 임차인으로서의 의무를 위반할 우려가 있거나 그 밖에 임대차를 유지하기 어려운 상당한 사유가 있는 경우 3. 임대차 목적물인 상가건물을 1년 6개월 이상 영리목적으로 사용하지 아니한 경우 4. 임대인이 선택한 신규임차인이 임차인과 권리금 계약을 체결하고 그 권리금을 지급한 경우 ③ 임대인이 제1항을 위반하여 임차인에게 손해를 발생하게 한 때에는 그 손해를 배상할 책임이 있다. 이 경우 그 손해배상액은 신규임차인이 임차인에게 지급하기로 한 권리금과 임대차 종료 당시의 권리금 중 낮은 금액을 넘지 못한다. ⑤ 임차인은 임대인에게 임차인이 주선한 신규임차인이 되려는 자의 보증금 및 차임을 지급할 자력 또는 그 밖에 임차인으로서의 의무를 이행할 의사 및 능력에 관하여 자신이 알고 있는 정보를 제공하여야 한다. 부칙 〈제13284호, 2015. 5. 13〉 제1조(시행일) 이 법은 공포한 날부터 시행한다. 다만, 제4조의 개정규정은 공포 후 6개월이 경과한 날부터 시행한다. 제2조(대항력에 관한 적용례) 제2조 제3항의 개정규정 중 제3조 대항력에 관한 규정은 이 법 시행 후 최초로 계약이 체결되거나 갱신되는 임대차부터 적용한다. 제3조(권리금 회수기회 보호 등에 관한 적용례) 제10조의4의 개정규정은 이 법 시행 당시 존속 중인 임대차부터 적용한다.

B. Whether the lease agreement is succeeded and the protection provision of this case is applied

In full view of the aforementioned basic facts, Eul evidence No. 6 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the following facts are acknowledged: (a) the Defendant and the non-party 1 continued to renew the lease contract after setting the lease term of two years on July 31, 2008; (b) the Plaintiff and the designated party agreed to deduct lease deposit from the purchase price instead of comprehensively succeeding to the lessor’s status while purchasing the building of this case from non-party 1; and (c) on July 2, 2015, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a certificate of contents seeking delivery of the instant pharmacy on the ground that the lease contract of this case was terminated as of July 31, 2015. Meanwhile, the instant protection provision was amended by Act No. 13284, May 13, 2015 (amended by Act No. 13284, May 13, 2015). Therefore, the Plaintiff’s allegation that the provision on the lease agreement of this case was in force between the Plaintiff and the Defendant 2015.

C. Five years of the lease term and the applicability of the protection provisions of this case

On July 31, 2008, the instant lease agreement was concluded and renewed between Nonparty 1 and the Defendant. On September 30, 2014, the Plaintiff’s status as the lessor was terminated on July 31, 2015 by the notification of termination of the Plaintiff after Nonparty 1 succeeded to the Plaintiff from Nonparty 1. However, as in the instant case, the instant protection provision cannot be deemed not to apply solely on the ground that the lease term including the initial lease term is more than five years, and the lessee’s right to request renewal of the contract is not recognized pursuant to Article 10(2) of the Commercial Building Lease Act. The reasons are as follows. Accordingly, the instant lease agreement was more than five years, but the instant protection provision may be applied, therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

① Article 10(2) of the Commercial Building Lease Act explicitly states, with respect to the lessee’s right to request the renewal of the contract, that “the whole term of the lease including the first term of the lease may be exercised only within the extent not exceeding five years.” However, there is no such provision regarding the protection provision of this case.

(2) The proviso of Article 10-4 (1) of the Commercial Building Lease Act provides that a lessor shall not be obliged to recover the premium if there is a reason to refuse a request for the renewal of a contract under each subparagraph of Article 10 (1) of the Commercial Building Lease Act, and there is no such provision for a lessee unable to exercise the right to request renewal pursuant to Article 10 (2) of the Commercial Building Lease Act. However, the case holding that, in comparison with the proviso of Article 10-4 (1) of the Commercial Building Lease Lease Act, the following cases are more important to protect the lessee’s premium in cases where the lessor may refuse a request for renewal due to a reason under each subparagraph of Article 10 (1) of the Commercial Building Lease Lease Lease Act, although the lessee has the right to request renewal of the contract, and the latter cases where the lessor does not have the right to request renewal of the contract any longer than five-year lease period. In other words, the reason under each subparagraph of Article 10 (1) of the Commercial Building Lease Lease Lease Lease Act provides that only the lessee may be deemed to have violated the duty of Article 10 (14).

③ The legislative intent of Article 10(1) of the Commercial Building Lease Act is to guarantee the minimum business period to the lessee in order to realize the legislative purpose of the Commercial Building Lease Act, which aims to ensure the stability of the national economic life. On the other hand, Article 10-4 of the Commercial Building Lease Act provides that “The cost for the transfer or use of tangible and intangible property values, such as business facilities, fixtures, customers, credit, business know-how, and business gains depending on the location of a commercial building,” is formed incidental to the process of the lessee’s operating profits through a commercial building, but is separated from the commercial building, so it guarantees that the lessee can recover the value of property created in the tangible and intangible form, which is almost impossible for the lessee to recover after the termination of the lease, in order to ensure that the lessee can recover the value of property in the form of premium. Therefore, the two systems differ from each other. Therefore, it is difficult to deem that Article 10(2) of the Commercial Building Lease Lease Lease Act, which is a restriction on the right to request the renewal of the lease, should apply mutatis mutandis to this case.

④ In this respect, even if the main sentence of Article 10-4(1) of the Commercial Building Lease Act applies to a lessor unless the lessee has an obligation to renew the lease contract any longer, it cannot be deemed unreasonable to ensure that the lessee can recover the property value formed in the form of premium in relation to the commercial building through his/her business without any justifiable reason. Furthermore, the lessor, for whom five years have passed since the lease contract was renewed, may demand and carry out a considerable amount of rent and deposit, unless the lessee is clearly high in terms of the new lessee and the new lessee to enter into the lease contract, and thus, the lessor may unilaterally demand the lessee to recover the property value generated in the form of premium. In addition, it is difficult to interpret that the lessor may unilaterally demand the lessee to reduce the amount of rent and deposit without any reasonable restriction as stipulated in Article 11 of the Commercial Building Lease Lease Act, or that the lessee may not be deemed to have any excessive restriction on the amount of rent and deposit in the previous lease contract without taking account of the aforementioned circumstances to prevent the lessee from calculating the amount of rent and deposit in accordance with the Commercial Building Lease Lease Act.

⑤ On the other hand, in the event that there exist grounds under each subparagraph of Article 10(1) of the Commercial Building Lease Act or grounds for justification under Article 10-4(2) of the same Act, a lessor may recover the right to use and profit from the leased object without being subject to restrictions on guaranteeing the lessee’s opportunity to recover the premium, and Article 10-4(5) of the same Act provides the lessee with information about the capacity, etc. of a new lessee arranged by the lessee to provide the lessor with information about the reasonable judgment. Therefore, even if Article 10(2) of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act is not applied by analogy, it cannot be deemed that the lessor excessively limits the lessor’s right to use and profit from the leased object.

6. The period of the tenant's business operation in a commercial building and the size of the value of tangible and intangible property accumulated in the commercial building and the degree of trust accumulated between the landlord and the lessee. As such, the value of tangible and intangible property formed in the commercial building where the tenant has operated for a long period of more than five years is greater. Even if the tenant recovered the value of intangible and intangible property remaining in the commercial building during the lease period due to the increase of large operating income during the lease period, if such value of intangible and intangible property remains in the commercial building upon the termination of the lease, it would go against the legislative intent of the protection provision of this case.

7) If Article 10(2) of the Commercial Building Lease Act applies mutatis mutandis to the instant provision, a lessee, unlike a lessor who intends to obtain a five-year lease term, intends to terminate a lease agreement within five years without a five-year lease term guaranteed by the Commercial Building Lease Act in order to recover some of the value of tangible and intangible property attached to a commercial building as premium, and ultimately, the lessee’s exercise of a lessee’s right to request renewal of the contract is chilling. Such increase in the short-term lease goes against the legislative purpose of the Commercial Building Lease Act, which aims to ensure the stability of the national economic life.

D. Whether the plaintiff and the designated parties interfere with the collection of premiums by the defendant

Considering the aforementioned basic facts and the following circumstances revealed in full view of all the evidence as seen earlier, even if the Plaintiff and the designated party did not conclude a lease agreement with Nonparty 2 arranged by the Defendant, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff and the designated party interfered with the Defendant’s receipt of the premium from Nonparty 2, who arranged for the lessee, by providing “the lessor’s refusal to conclude a lease agreement with a new lessee arranged by the lessee without justifiable grounds,” as stipulated in Article 10-4(1)4 of the Commercial Building Lease Act. There is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant interfered with the acts stipulated in each subparagraph of Article 10-4(1) of the Commercial Building Lease Act. Accordingly, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

① Considering the fact that the Defendant and Nonparty 1 did not raise rent once more than seven years after July 2008 when concluding the instant lease contract, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff was unreasonably demanding that the amount of deposit be increased from KRW 100,000 to KRW 3,500,000 (including surtax), and that the amount of deposit is 00,000,000,000,000,000, 300,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,000,00,000,000,00,000,00,000,00,000,000,000,00,000,00,000,00,00,00,00,00,00.

② Around June 2015, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that he would raise the monthly rent of KRW 3,50,00 (including value added tax) to the Defendant. Therefore, the Plaintiff was aware that the Plaintiff would rent the instant pharmacy to the new lessee. If so, the Defendant should have notified Nonparty 2 of such circumstances when concluding the premium contract with Nonparty 2 and determined the amount of the premium on the premise that the lease contract could be concluded with such rent. Nevertheless, the Defendant did not express such fact in concluding the premium contract with Nonparty 2, and it appears that Nonparty 2 would not have concluded the premium contract with the Defendant for 00,000 won on the premise that it would be KRW 3,00,000,000, which is the monthly rent of KRW 80,000 (including value added tax). In such a case, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff would have an obligation to collect the premium in 00,000,000 won to the extent that it would not have been 0,000,000 won.

③ Around June 23, 2015, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a certificate verifying whether the lease agreement was extended, and notified the Defendant of the termination of the instant lease agreement. Around July 2015, the Plaintiff attempted to enter into a lease agreement with Nonparty 2 arranged by the Defendant, but the agreement on rent was not entered into. The Plaintiff, who was working until May 25, 2016 at the ○○○○○○○ Hospital (hereinafter “○○○○○○ Hospital”), around the time when the instant pharmacy was transferred from the Defendant, was transferred to the Defendant, and was operating the instant pharmacy after delivery of the instant pharmacy on seven months from the end of May 2016, and leased the divided pharmacy to Nonparty 3 on December 19, 2016. In light of such circumstances, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff interfered with the Defendant’s collection of the premium by presenting the terms and conditions of the instant pharmacy that it was unreasonable for the Defendant to operate the instant pharmacy.

④ Considering that the Plaintiff’s demand from Nonparty 2 to Nonparty 2 for the issuance of a family relation certificate, deposit balance certificate, pharmacy operation plan, etc. related to personal information as well as documents related to Nonparty 2’s qualification certificate or delinquent payment of national taxes or local taxes, it is only a mere fact that the Plaintiff’s demand for the establishment of a new lease contract was unnecessary. However, the Commercial Building Lease Act provides for the lessee’s duty to provide information on the intent and ability to perform the obligation as a new lessee, such as the rent, etc. of a person who intends to become a new lessee, or a lessee (Article 10-4(5)), and the Commercial Building Lease Act provides that the lessor may refuse to enter into a lease contract with Nonparty 2, without justifiable grounds, solely on the ground that the Plaintiff requested the presentation of the above documents.

E. Sub-committee

Ultimately, it is difficult to recognize liability for damages caused by the obstruction of the Defendant’s collection of premiums in relation to the instant lease agreement to the Plaintiff and the designated parties, and on a different premise, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit. Furthermore, there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff and the designated parties have all other obligations, such as premium, damages, and interest thereon arising from the delivery of the instant pharmacy to the Defendant. Therefore, such obligations do not exist, and as long as the Defendant contests this, there is benefit

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of the principal lawsuit shall be accepted for the reason that it is reasonable, and the defendant's counterclaim shall be dismissed for the reason that it is not reasonable. Since the judgment of the first instance is unfair for the conclusion differently, the judgment of the court of first instance shall be accepted, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked and the plaintiff'

[Attachment 1] List: omitted

[Attachment 2] Drawings: Omitted

[Attachment 3] List of Appointeds: Omitted

Judges Kim Jong-chul (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Judge)