상가건물임대차보호법상 임차인의 권리금 회수기회 보호에 관한 비판적 고찰 - 대법원 2019. 7. 4. 선고 2018다284226 판결을 중심으로 - (A critical study on protection of opportunity of collecting premiums in Commercial Building Lease Protection Act - Commentary on Supreme Court Decision 2018Da284226 Decided July 4, 2019 -)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한양법학회
· 수록지 정보 : 한양법학 / 31권 / 2호 / 93 ~ 112페이지
· 저자명 : 김판기

초록

상가건물임대차에 있어 권리금의 보호문제는 오랫동안 논의의 대상이 되어왔고, 그 주된 논의의 핵심은 억울한 상가임차인의 권리금을 안정적으로 회수하게 해 줄 방법은 없는지에 대한 것이었다. 이러한 주류적인 논의에 따르면 권리금은 오랜 기간 인정되어온 관행에 따라 당연히 보장되어야 할 대상으로 보고 있으며, 이러한 논의의 결과로 2015년 5월 13일 상가건물 임대차보호법 개정에서 명시적으로 권리금에 관한 규정을 두기에까지 이르렀다.
권리금 보호에 관한 상가건물 임대차보호법은 제10조의3(권리금의 정의 등), 제10조의4(권리금 회수기회 보호 등), 제10조의5(권리금 적용제외), 제10조의6(표준권리금계약서의 작성 등), 제10조의7(권리금 평가기준의 고시)로 구분하여 규정하고 있다. 이러한 규정 중 제10조의4는 임차인이 하여금 권리금을 최대한 확보할 수 있도록 함으로써 권리금 보호와 관련해 핵심적인 역할을 하고 있다.
대상판결의 경우에는 권리금 회수 기회 보호에 관한 여러 쟁점 중 임차인이 임대인에게 권리금 회수 방해를 이유로 손해배상을 청구하기 위해서 반드시 신규임차인을 주선하여야 하는지, 특히 임대인이 임차인이 신규임차인이 되려는 자를 주선하더라도 그와 임대차계약을 체결하지 않겠다는 의사를 확정적으로 표시한 경우까지 신규임차인을 주선하도록 요구하는 것이 타당한 것인지 여부가 주된 쟁점이다.
본 논문에서는 권리금에 대한 기본개념을 고찰하고, 상가건물 임대차보호법 제10조의4 규정의 해석론과 이에 관한 최근까지의 판례의 경향을 검토하고, 대상판결의 해석에 대해 비판적 측면에서 판례의 태도를 검토하였다. 그리고 이와 더불어 권리금제도에 대한 회의적인 측면에서 권리금 보호의 문제를 접근해 보았다.

영어초록

The protection of the premium has long been discussed in commercial building lease. The key to these discussions was to ensure a stable recovery of the leaseholder's premium on commercial building. According to this mainstream discussion, the premium should be guaranteed according to long-approved practices. As a result, Commercial Building Lease Protection Act on May 13, 2015 contained provisions concerning the premium.
Commercial Building Lease Protection Act on the protection of premiums stipulates by dividing them into Article 10-3(Definitions, etc. of Premiums), Article 10-4 (Protection of Opportunity of Collecting Premiums, etc.), Article 10-5 (Exemption from Application of Premiums), Article 10-6 (Preparation, etc. of Written Standard Premium Contracts) and Article 10-7 (Public Notification of Standards for Appraising Premiums). Article 10-4 of these regulations plays a key role in protecting premiums.
<Commercial Building Lease Protection Act> Article 10-4 (Protection of Opportunity of Collecting Premiums, etc.) (1) No lessor shall obstruct any lessee in receiving any premium pursuant to a premium contract from a person arranged by the lessee to become a new lessee, by committing any of the following acts from three months prior to the expiry of the lease period until the end of the lease: Provided, That the same shall not apply where any of the grounds set forth in the subparagraphs of Article 10 (1) exists: 1. Requesting a person arranged by the lessee to become a new lessee to pay premiums; or receiving premiums from a person arranged by the lessee to become a new lessee; 2. Preventing a person arranged by the lessee to become a new lessee, from paying a premium to the lessee; 3. Requesting a person arranged by the lessee to become a new lessee, to pay remarkably large-amount of rents and deposits, compared with the tax on a commercial building, public charges, rents and deposits of surrounding commercial buildings and other charges; 4. Refusing to conclude a lease contract with a person arranged by the lessee to become a new lessee, without any justifiable grounds.
(2) In any of the following cases, justifiable grounds prescribed in paragraph (1) 4 shall be deemed to exist: 1. Where a person arranged by the lessee to become a new lessee, cannot afford to pay deposits or rents; 2. Where a person arranged by the lessee to become a new lessee, is likely to violate the duty of a lessee or any reasonable ground exists, which makes it impracticable to maintain lease; 3. Where the subject-matter of the lease is a commercial building and has not been used for commercial purposes for at least 18 months; 4. Where a new lessee selected by the lessor concludes a premium contract with the lessee and pays premiums.
(3) Where a lessor violates paragraph (1), incurring any loss to a lessee, he/she shall be liable to compensate for such loss. In such cases, damages shall not exceed the lesser amount of a premium to be paid to a lessee by a new lessee and premium as at the time when the lease expires.
(4) Claim for damages to a lessor pursuant to paragraph (3) shall expire by completion of prescription if it is not exercised within three years from the date when the lease expires.
(5) A lessee shall provide information to the lessor, to the best of his/her knowledge, on the financial capacity of the person arranged by the lessee to become a new lessee, such person’s willingness and ability to pay deposits and rents and to perform duties as a lessee.
The main issues of this judgment are as follows.
1. Is it necessary for the lessee to arrange a new leaseholder in order to claim damages from the lessee for obstructing the recovery of the premiums? 2. Is it reasonable for the lessee to require the new leaseholder to be arranged until the lessee has clearly expressed his intention not to enter into a lease with him, even if the lessee arranges a person who intends to become a new leaseholder? In this paper, the basic concept of premiums was considered, the interpretation theory of the provisions of Article 10-4 of Commercial Building Lease Protection Act and the trend of recent precedents were reviewed, and the attitude of the precedent was reviewed from a critical aspect to the interpretation of this judgment. In addition, the issue of premiums protection was approached from the perspective of skepticism about the premiums system.

참고자료

· 없음