Whether an industrial complex management agency can terminate an occupancy agreement through the procedures prescribed by the former Industrial Cluster Development and Factory Establishment Act in cases where occupant enterprises fail to fulfill the obligation to pay the sale price prescribed in the occupancy agreement (affirmative)

Articles 32(1), 39, 39-2, 40(1), 40-2(1), 42(1), 42(1)5, 6, 7, and 43 of the former Industrial Cluster Development and Factory Establishment Act (Amended by Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013);

Lee & Lee Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Mara Lease, Attorneys Kim Han-hwan et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea Industrial Complex Corporation (Law Firm Yul, Central, et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2014Nu53218 decided December 18, 2014

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

This part of the ground of appeal is without merit, and it cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal, as it is alleged that the evidence belongs to the full power of the fact-finding court.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

Article 9(1) and (4) of the former Industrial Cluster Development and Factory Establishment Act (amended by Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013; hereinafter “former Industrial Cluster Act”) provides that an industrial complex management agency should enter into a contract for occupancy including matters concerning selling price, payment method, termination of a contract for occupancy, etc. when selling land in a complex, and Article 42(1)5 of the former Industrial Cluster Development and Factory Establishment Act provides that where an occupant enterprise violates a contract for occupancy, a management agency may order correction thereof and terminate the contract for occupancy if it fails to comply with such order. According to the former Industrial Cluster Act, an occupant enterprise cannot freely dispose of an industrial site, factory, etc. in an industrial complex, and if it disposes of an industrial site, etc. in violation thereof, it becomes the ground for termination of the contract for occupancy (Articles 39, 39-2, 42(1)6 and 7), and Article 42(1)1 of the same Act where the person who acquired an industrial site, etc. fails to enter into a contract for occupancy within a given period.

In light of the language and legislative purport of the provisions of the former Industrial Cluster Act, and the relationship between the acquisition of industrial sites and the occupancy contract, etc., the industrial complex management agency can terminate the occupancy contract through the procedures prescribed in the Industrial Cluster Act if the occupant company fails to perform the obligation to pay the sale price prescribed in the occupancy contract.

In full view of the adopted evidence, the lower court determined that: (a) the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to the effect that “if the Plaintiff fails to pay the sales price for more than six months, the occupancy contract may be terminated or terminated” in the occupancy contract of this case (Article 15(1)4 of the contract); (b) the Plaintiff failed to pay for more than two years, 1,015,49,87 won out of the sales price prescribed in the occupancy contract of this case; and (c) the Defendant provided the Plaintiff with an opportunity to present his opinion on the payment of the sales price in several times before the termination of the occupancy contract of this case; and (d) the Plaintiff did not err in cancelling the occupancy contract of this case on the grounds that the Plaintiff violated the occupancy contract of this case.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the termination of occupancy contracts under the Industrial Cluster Act

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.

Justices Ko Young-han (Presiding Justice)