All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A. For reasons indicated in its reasoning, the lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s claim for damages in its entirety on the ground that: (a) the entire term of the instant lease agreement exceeds five years and the Plaintiff cannot request the Defendants to renew the agreement; (b) the Defendants did not bear the duty to protect the opportunity to recover the premium pursuant to Article 10-4(1) of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act; and (c) even if the Defendants’ duty to protect the Defendants is recognized, insofar as the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have concluded the premium agreement with the new lessee and arranged the Defendants to become a new lessee, the Defendants’ act of interfering with the collection of the premium cannot be recognized.

B. In light of the language and content of Article 10-4 of the former Commercial Building Lease Protection Act (amended by Act No. 15791, Oct. 16, 2018; hereinafter “Commercial Building Lease Protection Act”), and the legislative intent of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act, in cases where a lessee is unable to exercise the right to request the renewal of a contract for more than five years, including the initial lease term, pursuant to Article 10(2) of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act, the lessor is obligated to protect the opportunity to recover premiums under Article 10-4(1) of the same Act.

[See Supreme Court Decision 2017Da2225312, 225329 (Counterclaim) Decided May 16, 2019] In other words, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the requirements for protection of a lessor’s opportunity to recover premiums, as prescribed in Article 10-4(1) of the Commercial Building Lease Act, where a lessee is unable to exercise the right to request renewal of a contract, the lessor did not bear the duty to protect the lessor’s opportunity to recover premiums.

However, as examined below, unless the defendants' act of obstructing the collection of premiums is recognized, the error of misunderstanding the above legal principles cannot affect the judgment, and thus, the judgment cannot be reversed.

(c) Commercial Building Lease Act;