Time of the occurrence of the liability for delay in damages due to the invasion of opportunity to recoup the premium

In most lease contracts, the primary focus is on the rights and obligations between the tenant and the landlord. However, in the case of premiums for commercial building leases, the landlord is obligated not to interfere with the outgoing tenant’s chance to recover the premiums from a new tenant. The 「Commercial Building Lease Protection Act」 stipulates that if a landlord unjustly violates this obligation, he is liable to compensate the tenant for damages. However, the 「Commercial Building Lease Protection」 Act does not address all legal issues related to premiums, including the time of the occurrence of the liability for delay in damages when a landlord unjustly obstructs the tenant’s recovery of premiums. The Supreme Court Decision 2022Da260586 delivered on February 2, 2023 decided that while the landlord’s liability for obstructing the tenant’s recovery of premiums is a statutory responsibility, the obligation to compensate becomes due on the day the lease terminates, with the liability for delay commencing the following day. This judgement has sparked debate due to its implications on existing legal principles regarding the time of the occurrence of the liability for delay, requiring further review. The liability for damages due to the landlord’s obstruction of the tenant’s opportunity to recover premiums under the Article 10-4(3) of the 「Commercial Building Lease Protection Act」 can be considered a statutory liability based on the nature of the responsibility, legislative intent, and the interpretation of relevant provisions. Although the liability is statutory in nature, the predetermined amount of damages and the timing of the loss make it comparable to the obligations with a fixed term. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the liability for delay arises from the day after the lease terminates, similar to the obligations with a fixed due. This decision is significant as it is the first Supreme Court decision to explicitly clarify the legal nature of the landlord’s liability for obstructing the recovery of premiums and the timing of the delay in liability for damages. However, while the conclusion regarding the time of the occurrence of the liability for delay is sound, the decision lacks detailed reasoning, which leaves some room for dissatisfaction.