logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.12.11 2018나89459
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

Reasons

1. The reasons for this part of the underlying facts are as stated in Paragraph 1 of the reasoning of the first instance judgment, in addition to the fact that the court finds “Plaintiff” as “Defendant” as “Defendant,” and therefore, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. On July 2017, before the end of the instant lease agreement, the Plaintiff agreed to receive KRW 150 million for the premium for H and the instant commercial building, and notified the Defendant of such fact.

However, as the Defendant refused to enter into a lease agreement with H, the Plaintiff suffered damages equivalent to KRW 150 million for the said premium due to interference with the opportunity to recover the premium, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 150 million as compensation for damages pursuant to Article 10-4 of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act (hereinafter “Commercial Building Lease Protection Act”).

B. The Defendant’s instant lease agreement cannot exercise the Plaintiff’s right to request the renewal of the contract more than five years, and the Defendant does not bear the duty to protect the opportunity to recover the premium pursuant to Article 10-4(1) of the Commercial Building Lease Act.

Even if the defendant bears the duty to protect the opportunity to recover premiums, there was a justifiable reason to refuse to conclude a contract with H, not to conclude a premium contract with H, not to arrange H as a new lessee, and to conclude a contract with a person who intends to become a new lessee.

Therefore, since the defendant cannot be deemed as having interfered with collecting premiums under the Commercial Building Lease Act, the plaintiff's claim should be dismissed.

3. Determination

A. In light of the language, content, and legislative intent of Article 10-4 of the Commercial Building Lease Act as to whether the obligation to protect the opportunity to recover premiums arises to the Defendant, the entire term of lease including the initial term of lease pursuant to Article 10(2) of the Commercial Building Lease Act exceeds five years.

arrow