The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Suwon District Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 10-4(1) of the former Commercial Building Lease Protection Act (amended by Act No. 15791, Oct. 16, 2018; hereinafter “Commercial Building Lease Protection Act”) provides, “The lessor shall not interfere with receiving premiums from a person who wishes to become a new lessee arranged by the lessee according to the premium contract by doing any of the following acts from three months to the expiration of the lease term to the expiration of the lease term, and the lessee shall not interfere with receiving premiums from a person who wishes to become a new lessee arranged by the lessee pursuant to the premium contract.” However, one of the following reasons is one of the following grounds:

Where a lessor causes damage to a lessee due to a lessee’s violation of the duty to protect the opportunity to recover premiums, he/she is liable to compensate for such damage.

(3) Article 10-3 through 10-7 of the Commercial Building Lease Act, newly established by the amendment of Act No. 13284 on May 13, 2015, aims to prevent a lessee from unfairly infringing on economic benefits by a lessor, such as expenses invested in a commercial building or designation or credit formed by business activities. As such, the lessee is obliged to recover such economic benefits in the form of premium, and the lessor is liable to compensate for damages if the lessor interferes with such economic benefits without justifiable grounds.

In light of the contents and legislative intent of the provisions related to the Commercial Building Lease Act, in principle, the lessee should have arranged the lessee to become a new lessee in order to seek damages due to the lessee's interference with collecting the premium.

However, the lessor's intention not to conclude the lease contract was finally expressed even if the lessee acted as a new lessee without any justifiable reason.