Whether a lessor, who is the co-owner of a commercial building to which the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act applies, notifies the lessee of the refusal to renew the lease under Article 10(4) of the same Act is an act of management of the jointly owned property (affirmative)

Since the act of co-owners to lease the article jointly owned to another person and the act of cancelling the lease agreement thereof constitutes the act of management of the article jointly owned, it is determined by the majority of shares of co-owners pursuant to the main sentence of Article 265 of the Civil Act. The act of a lessor, who is the co-owners of a commercial building governed by the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act, to notify the lessee of his refusal to renew the lease under Article 10 (4) of the same Act shall be determined by the majority of co-owners as it constitutes the act

Article 265 of the Civil Code, Article 10(4) of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act

Supreme Court Decision 62Da1 delivered on April 4, 1962 (No. 10-2, 61)

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and one other (Attorney Jeong Sung-sung et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2009Na33831 decided April 23, 2010

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. The act of co-owners to lease the article jointly owned to another person and the act of cancelling the lease agreement constitutes the act of management of the article jointly owned by the co-owners under the main sentence of Article 265 of the Civil Act and thus, a majority of co-owners' shares should be determined (see Supreme Court Decision 62Da1, Apr. 4, 1962, etc.). The act of lessor, who is the co-owner of a commercial building to which the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act applies, notifies the lessee of the refusal to renew the lease under Article 10(4) of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act, constitutes an act of management of the article jointly owned, and therefore, it constitutes an act of management

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, as co-owner of the building of this case which is a commercial building, the plaintiff, one of the lessor, expressed his/her intent to refuse to renew each lease agreement with the defendants, and the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim on the ground that the plaintiff is merely a 1/2 equity right holder of the building of this case and there is no evidence to prove that the non-party, who is the remaining 1/2 equity right holder of the building of this case, consented to the refusal to renew the lease agreement with the defendants, and therefore, the plaintiff's expression of intent to refuse the renewal cannot be deemed valid. The judgment of the court below is justified in light of the above legal principles, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the implied renewal of the lease of commercial buildings under the Commercial Building Act

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are 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.

Justices Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)