beta
Text
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant).
Reasons
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 2017Da2225312, and 225329 (Counterclaim) Decided May 16, 2019] The lower court determined that the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) who is a lessor, bears the duty of prohibiting the interference with the collection of premiums under Article 10-4 of the former Commercial Building Lease Act, on the grounds stated in its reasoning.
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’s opportunity to recover premiums under Article 10-4(1) of
2. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff demanded the new lessee to be the lease deposit and rent of a significantly high amount.
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 in violating the rules of evidence.
3. 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.