207da129589 Lease Contract

1. A;

2. B

3. C.

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff X and Y

a Stock Company

Z. Representative Director;

Manager K

Law Firm Q, Attorneys Qua-soo et al.

June 10, 2008

June 24, 2008

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed. 2. Costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The Defendant: (a) leased the store size of 25.12cm with the store size of 0.0 square meters to the Plaintiffs; (b) entered into a store lease agreement with the Plaintiffs on December 31, 2007; (c) December 31, 2009; (d) December 31, 201; (e) December 31, 201; (e) December 31, 201; (e) December 31, 201; and (e) December 31, 2013; and (e) expressed consent when the Plaintiffs transfer possession rights to the above store to others.

1. Basic facts

A. The entire store in Busan bS is owned by Busan Metropolitan City, and the Defendant leased the store with permission from Busan Metropolitan City from December 22, 1982 to April 21, 2016.

B. D around December 1982, the Defendant leased 00 m2.00 m2.25.12 m2 (hereinafter “the instant store”) among the said stores, and the lease period was renewed on a two-year basis each time when the two-year period expires. The last lease contract between D and the Defendant was in December 28, 2005, and the lease period was from January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2007. D died on February 20, 2006, and the Plaintiffs were the successors (hereinafter “net D and the Plaintiffs”).

D. On October 4, 2007, the defendant notified the plaintiff's refusal to renew the lease agreement to the plaintiff's side, and the deposit received from the plaintiff's side was deposited on March 18, 2008.

E. Upon the termination of the lease agreement with the Plaintiff on December 31, 2007, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with the E on January 1, 2008 on the instant store.

F. Although the instant store was leased at the Plaintiff’s beginning, the Plaintiff’s sub-leaseed to F to F, and the F actually operated the instant store for at least 20 years (the Plaintiff’s sub-lease only reported that the difference between the rent and the rent that the Defendant bears to the Plaintiff’s Defendant through sub-lease). Since January 1, 2008, G, its wife, after the death of F, concluded a sub-lease contract with E, a new lessee, and is conducting business until now.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 10 (including each number), the result of on-site inspection, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. Claim: If the Defendant transfers the right to manage the instant store, etc. to Busan Metropolitan City due to the expiration of the permitted period for use, the Busan Metropolitan City shall sell the instant store to the Plaintiff’s side, the lessee, and the Plaintiff’s ownership is acquired. Therefore, the lease contract with the Plaintiff’s side should continue to be maintained.

Determination: Even if the management right is transferred to Busan Metropolitan City, there is no ground to view that the Plaintiff, the lessee, is naturally entitled to sell the store of this case from Busan Metropolitan City.

B. argument: Sub-lease is a practice, and the lease contract has not been breached and has been renewed for a long time. Therefore, the lease contract must be renewed as a matter of course.

The judgment: The sub-lease is a practice and is not in violation of the lease contract, which alone does not necessarily mean that the defendant is obligated to renew the lease contract, and even if the lease contract has been renewed in December 1982, it cannot be said that it was merely an anti-private interest that the plaintiff actually enjoyed, and it did not go to the right to legal protection (right to seek renewal).

C. argument: The plaintiff's refusal to renew a lease contract with a third party on a similar condition, while entering into a lease contract with a third party. This is the intent to only inflict pain on the plaintiffs, and is in violation of the abuse of rights or the principle of good faith. Determination is that the defendant's conclusion of a lease contract with a third party does not cause pain to the plaintiffs or violate the abuse of rights or good faith principle.

D. Other determination: The plaintiff's side does not actually engage in the business at the store of this case, but only reported the difference between the rent and the rent through sub-lease, but it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff has a 'real right', which is a property right on this basis.

3. Conclusion

Since the lease contract between the plaintiff and the defendant was concluded on December 31, 2007 on the expiration of the lease term, the plaintiffs' claims sought on different premise are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Heading