(영문) 대법원 2020.11.5.선고 2020다241017 판결

1. Article 10(1) and (3) of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Commercial Building Lease Protection Act”) provides that with respect to the right to request renewal of a contract between six months and one month before the expiration of the lease term, a lessor may not refuse renewal unless there is a reason prescribed by the proviso of paragraph (1), and shall be deemed to have been concluded under the same conditions as the former lease. Article 10(2) of the former Commercial Building Lease Protection Act (amended by Act No. 15791, Oct. 16, 2018; hereinafter referred to as the “Revised Commercial Lease Lease Act”) provides that the right to request renewal of a contract may be exercised only within the extent that the entire lease term including the initial lease term does not exceed five years, and Article 10(2) of the amended Commercial Lease Lease Act provides that Article 10(2) of the same Act can be exercised only within the extent that the whole lease term does not exceed ten years, and Article 2(2) of the Addenda of this Act provides that the term of lease shall either be amended or renewed.

In light of the language, content, and structure of the above provisions, “a lease which was concluded or renewed for the first time after the enforcement of the amended Commercial Building Lease Act” refers to a lease which was concluded after October 16, 2018, or on or before October 16, 2018, which was concluded for the first time after the enforcement of the amended Commercial Building Lease Act, but which is renewed on or after October 16, 2018, due to the reasons for renewal of the contract which was recognized before and after the enforcement of the amended Act. Therefore, it does not include cases where the term of the lease was not renewed after the lapse of the period of the mandatory lease under the Act prior to the enforcement of the amended Act but is terminated due to the expiration of the period, etc.

2. Review of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record reveals the following facts.

A. On July 20, 2012, the Plaintiff leased the instant building by setting the Plaintiff’s rent at KRW 2.5 million per annum to the Defendant.

B. After completing business registration on August 28, 2012, the Defendant has been engaged in manufacturing business, such as oil, etc. in the instant building.

C. On July 30, 2014, the Plaintiff agreed to increase the lease term to KRW 3 million per annum as the tea of the instant lease agreement with the Defendant and to extend the lease term to July 20, 2019. The Plaintiff drafted a lease agreement reflecting such details.

D. On April 6, 2019, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that he/she had no intent to renew the instant lease agreement, and on the same day, the Defendant demanded the Plaintiff to renew the instant lease agreement.

3. Examining these facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the obligatory term of lease for which the lessee’s right to request renewal is acknowledged at the time of entering into the instant lease agreement is five years pursuant to Article 10(2) of the former Commercial Building Lease Act. However, when the Defendant requested renewal of the instant lease to the Plaintiff on April 6, 2019, the period of the instant lease agreement commenced from July 20, 2012 has already expired five years, and the instant lease agreement was not renewed after the expiration of July 20, 2019, which was after the enforcement of the amended Commercial Building Lease Act due to the Plaintiff’s legitimate rejection of renewal. Accordingly, Article 10(2) of the amended Commercial Lease Lease Act, which was enforced from October 16, 2018, does not apply, the Defendant cannot request renewal of the instant lease on the ground that the period of lease applicable to the instant lease agreement is ten years.

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court determined that Article 10(2) of the amended Commercial Building Lease Act does not apply since the Defendant could no longer request the renewal of the instant lease more than five years after the period of the instant lease was more than the period of the obligatory lease, and accordingly, the instant lease was not renewed after the expiration of the period of validity. In so doing, the lower court is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the rules of evidence, misapprehending the legal principles on the violation of the rules of evidence, or the scope of the application of the Commercial Building Lease Act.

4. 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.