beta
Text
1. Of the part concerning the counterclaim in the judgment of the court of first instance, the amount equivalent to the following amount ordered to be paid.
Reasons
1. The court's explanation on this part of the facts of recognition is the same as the statement on "1. Facts of recognition" among the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it shall accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of
2. Judgment on the counterclaim
A. On December 15, 2016, before the termination of the instant lease agreement, the Defendant asserted by the Defendant concluded a premium agreement with D and the instant store at KRW 80 million (hereinafter “instant premium agreement”) and arranged a lease agreement with the Plaintiff, but the Plaintiff refused a lease agreement with the new lessee, thereby hindering the Defendant from receiving the premium from the new lessee.
Therefore, pursuant to Article 10-4 of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the Defendant the amount of KRW 57,201,00, which is equivalent to the premium for the store of this case, and damages for delay.
B. First of all, the determination on the cause of the claim is as to whether Article 10-4 of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act cannot be applied in cases where the lessee is not recognized as the lessor’s right to request renewal of the contract pursuant to Article 10(2) of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act.
The proviso of Article 10-4 (1) of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act provides that in the case of each subparagraph of Article 10 (1) of the above Act, the lessor shall not be obliged to protect the lessee’s opportunity to recover the premium, while the proviso of Article 10-4 (1) of the above Act does not separately provide or limit the lessor’s opportunity to recover the premium, and in the case of a long-term lease with respect to a commercial building, it is general that the value of tangible and intangible property is formed more than the short-term lease than the short-term lease. Thus, there is no reason not to protect the lessee’s opportunity to recover the premium for a long-term lessee exceeding five years, and it is inconsistent with the equity that only