2018Da270371 (principal claim) damages

2018Da270388 (Counterclaim) Building Name Map

person

A

Law Firm Han-gu et al.

Attorney Cha Sung-ho

B

Law Firm Governing Law Firm

Attorney Kim Jong-chul, Kim Jong-su, Park Jong-su, Park Ho, the highest interest, the highest interest, the leap, the promotion;

Ministry of Gender Equality

Suwon District Court Decision 2017Na86002, 2017Na86019 decided September 5, 2018

(Counterclaim) Judgment

May 30, 2019

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Suwon District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In accordance with Article 10-4(1) and (3) of the former Commercial Building Lease Protection Act (amended by Act No. 15791, Oct. 16, 2018; hereinafter referred to as the “former Commercial Building Lease Protection Act”), the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff”) filed a claim against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant”) for damages due to interference with the collection of premiums, and the lower court dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal by citing the reasoning of the first instance judgment rejecting the Plaintiff’s claim.

2. In light of the language, content, and legislative intent of Article 10-4 of the former Commercial Building Lease Act, even in cases where a lessee is unable to exercise the right to request the renewal of a contract for the entire period of lease including the initial period of lease pursuant to Article 10(2) of the former Commercial Building Lease Act, the lessor is obliged to protect the opportunity to recover the premium pursuant to Article 10-4(1) of the same Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2017Da225312, May 16, 2019).

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the aforementioned legal principles, since the Plaintiff arranged a new lessee from three months to three months after the expiration of the lease term pursuant to Article 10-4(1) of the former Commercial Building Lease Act, the Defendant cannot refuse to enter into a lease contract with a new lessee without justifiable grounds, and the same applies where the entire lease term between the Plaintiff and the Defendant has expired five years.

Therefore, the lower court’s rejection of the Plaintiff’s claim is erroneous by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the requirements to protect the lessor’s duty to recover premiums under Article 10-4(1) of the former Commercial Building Lease Act, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal assigning

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Cho Jong-hee

Justices Kim Jae-in

Justices Min Il-young in charge

Justices Lee Jae-hwan