【Holding】
[1] Criteria for determining whether the rent and deposit demanded by the lessor of a commercial building from a prospective new lessee as conditions for concluding a lease contract are "remarkably high" under Article 10-4(1)3 of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act / Matters the court must examine where the appropriate rent and deposit for the commercial building have not been ascertained but there is room to regard the rent and deposit demanded by the lessor as remarkably high in light of the existing rent and deposit, etc.
[2] In a case where A concluded a lease contract for a commercial unit owned by B and operated a pharmacy; thereafter, as no agreement was reached on a rent increase, B notified A of the refusal to renew the lease; A concluded a premium (key money) contract with C and introduced C to B as a new lessee; however, when B, in negotiating with C to conclude a new lease, demanded rent and a deposit more than three times the existing amounts, no contract was concluded on the ground that the rent was excessive; and A then rescinded the premium contract and sued B for damages on the ground of interference with the recovery of the premium, the Court held that the lower court erred by failing to conduct a sufficient hearing, etc. in holding that there was insufficient evidence to find that B had interfered with A's recovery of the premium by demanding remarkably high rent and deposit from C
【Summary of Decision】
[1] Article 10-4(1)3 of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act (hereinafter "Commercial Building Lease Protection Act") prescribes "demanding from a prospective new lessee introduced by the lessee remarkably high rent and deposit in light of taxes and public charges on the commercial building, the rent and deposit of surrounding commercial buildings, and amounts according to other burdens" as an act of interfering with the lessee's receipt of a premium under a premium contract from a prospective new lessee introduced by the lessee, and paragraph (3) of the same Article provides that where the lessor causes damage to the lessee through such interference, the lessor shall be liable to compensate for such damage. Taking into account the above wording together with the legislative purpose of the provision, which is to prevent the lessor from interfering with the lessee's recovery of the premium by proposing rent and a deposit at a level unacceptable to the new lessee for the purpose of refusing to conclude a lease contract with the new lessee introduced by the lessee, whether the rent and deposit demanded by the lessor from the new lessee as conditions for concluding a lease contract are "remarkably high" needs to be determined according to the specific circumstances by considering, in addition to the taxes and public charges on the commercial building and the rent and deposit of surrounding commercial buildings prescribed in the provision, the difference between the rent and deposit with the existing lessee and the rent and deposit demanded by the lessor from the prospective new lessee, the market price and appropriate rent of the commercial building, transaction practices, economic conditions, etc. Meanwhile, although procedures such as appraisal are not necessarily required in ascertaining the appropriate rent and deposit for the commercial building in order to determine whether the rent and deposit demanded by the lessor are "remarkably high," where there is room to regard the rent and deposit demanded by the lessor as remarkably high in light of the existing rent and deposit, etc., it is desirable for the court, rather than immediately rejecting the lessee's claim for damages on the ground that the appropriate rent and deposit have not been ascertained, to ascertain them through appraisal, etc. and then determine whether the demanded amount is remarkably high to the extent of circumventing the legislative purpose of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act.
[2] In a case where A concluded a lease contract for a commercial unit owned by B and operated a pharmacy; thereafter, as no agreement was reached on a rent increase, B notified A of the refusal to renew the lease; A concluded a premium contract with C and introduced C to B as a new lessee; however, when B, in negotiating with C to conclude a new lease, demanded rent and a deposit more than three times the existing amounts, no contract was concluded on the ground that the rent was excessive; and A then rescinded the premium contract and sued B for damages on the ground of interference with the recovery of the premium, the Court held as follows: since there is room to regard the rent and deposit demanded by B from C as remarkably high compared to the existing rent and deposit, the lower court, rather than immediately rejecting A's claim for damages on the ground that the appropriate rent and deposit for the commercial building had not been ascertained, needed to examine them and then determine whether the requirements for the claim for damages were met in accordance with the legislative purpose of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act; for these and other reasons, the lower court erred by failing to conduct a sufficient hearing, etc. in holding that there was insufficient evidence to find that B had interfered with A's recovery of the premium by demanding remarkably high rent and deposit from C.
【Referenced Statutes】
[1] Article 10-4(1)3 and (3) of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act [2] Articles 2(2) and 10-4(1)3 and (3) of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act; Article 2(2) and (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act
(Source: Supreme Court Decision 2026Da201337, July 16, 2026 | Judicial Information Disclosure Portal, Precedents)
2026. 10. 14. · By Attorney Dongwoo Shin
Call
KakaoTalk
E-mail