Open Decision Ledger · Civil obligations & remedies
Arrears of three rent periods as the trigger for terminating a lease
Supreme Court, June 24, 2026, 2024Da320215 (judgment)
Case name: 건물인도
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Does a landlord's right to terminate under Article 10-8 of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act arise the moment the tenant's rent arrears reach three periods of rent, and does that right extinguish if, before the copy of the complaint stating the declaration of termination is served on the tenant, rent is paid without the landlord's consent so that the arrears fall short of three periods?
Holding
It arises at once. Reaching three periods of rent arrears is the requirement on which the right arises, so once that level is reached the right to terminate arises immediately, and it is not judged against the point at which the declaration of termination reaches the tenant. Accordingly, where the landlord exercises the right on the ground of arrears of three periods or more, a unilateral payment of rent made without the landlord's consent before the copy of the complaint is served does not, in the absence of special circumstances, extinguish the right.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
여기서 ‘임차인의 차임연체액이 3기의 차임액에 달하였는지’는 해지권의 발생요건이므로, 차임연체액이 3기의 차임액에 달하였다면 즉시 계약해지권은 발생하고, 계약해지의 의사표시가 임차인에게 도달한 시점, 즉 해지권 행사의 효력 발생 시점을 기준으로 3기의 차임액에 달하였는지를 판단할 것은 아니다.
Unofficial English translation
Here, 'whether the amount of the lessee's delinquent rent has reached three installments of rent' is a requirement for the arising of the right of termination, and if the amount of delinquent rent has reached three installments of rent, the right to terminate the contract arises immediately, and it is not to be determined whether three installments of rent were reached as of the point in time when the declaration of termination of the contract reached the lessee, that is, as of the time when the exercise of the right of termination became effective.
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 피고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of the final appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
‘임차인의 차임연체액이 3기의 차임액에 달하였는지’는 해지권의 발생요건이므로, 차임연체액이 3기의 차임액에 달하였다면 즉시 계약해지권은 발생하고
Unofficial English translation
'whether the amount of the lessee's delinquent rent has reached three installments of rent' is a requirement for the arising of the right of termination, and therefore, if the amount of delinquent rent has reached three installments of rent, the right to terminate the contract arises immediately, and
Factors
- ‘임차인의 차임연체액이 3기의 차임액에 달하였는지’는 해지권의 발생요건이므로
- 차임연체액이 3기의 차임액에 달하였다면 즉시 계약해지권은 발생하고
- 행사 당시 3기 이상 차임연체가 있었던 이상
- 해지 의사표시가 기재된 소장 부본이 임차인에게 송달되기 전에 임대인 동의 없이 일방적으로 차임이 지급되어 차임연체액이 3기의 차임액에 달하지 않게 되었다 하더라도
- 특별한 사정이 없는 한 임대인의 계약해지권이 소멸한다고 할 수는 없다
Unofficial English translation
• 'whether the amount of the lessee's delinquent rent has reached three installments of rent' is a requirement for the arising of the right of termination, and therefore,
• if the amount of delinquent rent has reached three installments of rent, the right to terminate the contract arises immediately, and
• once there was a delinquency of three or more installments of rent at the time of exercise,
• even if rent was unilaterally paid without the lessor's consent before a copy of the complaint stating the declaration of termination was served upon the lessee, so that the amount of delinquent rent no longer reached three installments of rent,
• unless there are special circumstances, the lessor's right to terminate the contract cannot be regarded as being extinguished
Relation to precedent
States a new standard Read from the decision
차임연체액이 3기의 차임액에 달하였다면 즉시 계약해지권은 발생하고, 계약해지의 의사표시가 임차인에게 도달한 시점, 즉 해지권 행사의 효력 발생 시점을 기준으로 3기의 차임액에 달하였는지를 판단할 것은 아니다
Unofficial English translation
if the amount of delinquent rent has reached three installments of rent, the right to terminate the contract arises immediately, and it is not to be determined whether three installments of rent were reached as of the point in time when the declaration of termination of the contract reached the lessee, that is, as of the time when the exercise of the right of termination became effective
Decisions referred to
해당 본문 참조
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
What circumstances make a payment made before service of the complaint a special circumstance that extinguishes a termination right already arisen?
A later decision setting out what counts as the special circumstances reserved by this judgment would require this entry to be read again. An amendment to Article 10-8 of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act, in particular to the three-period threshold, would do the same.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-24
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 7 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 6 (relation to precedent).
Axis 6 (Relation to precedent): Primary “States a new standard” vs Independent “Cannot be determined”
The primary reading may treat the express distinction between accrual and effectiveness as a new standard, while the independent reading may find the precedent relationship unascertainable because the supplied text identifies no earlier cases.
차임연체액이 3기의 차임액에 달하였다면 즉시 계약해지권은 발생하고, 계약해지의 의사표시가 임차인에게 도달한 시점, 즉 해지권 행사의 효력 발생 시점을 기준으로 3기의 차임액에 달하였는지를 판단할 것은 아니다Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Busan District Court, in its judgment of 28 November 2024 (2024Na46880), held that the plaintiff's declaration of termination under Article 10-8 of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act was effective when the copy of the complaint was served on the defendant. It reasoned that although the defendant paid part of the overdue rent before that service, the plaintiff could not be taken to have received the rent without any objection, so the plaintiff's right to terminate had not extinguished.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error. Measured against the legal principle it set out, the court below had neither misapprehended the law relating to the termination of a commercial building lease nor made any other error affecting the judgment, and the Justices unanimously dismissed the appeal with costs on the defendant.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which the landlord's exercise of the right was preceded by no arrears of three periods, since the right arises only once that level is reached.
- A case in which special circumstances accompany the payment made before service, because the Court preserved the right only where there are no such circumstances.
- A case in which the landlord consented to the rent paid before service of the complaint, since the Court's rule is framed around a payment made without the landlord's consent.
Record verification notes
Fix from the file the date the landlord reached three periods of arrears, the date the right was exercised and the date the copy of the complaint was served. Then gather the facts about the payment made before service, since the Court reserved special circumstances without saying what they are.
From the official text
Points at issue
상가건물 임대차보호법 제10조의8에 정한 차임연체를 이유로 한 임대차계약 해지권은 차임연체액이 3기의 차임액에 달하는 즉시 발생하는지 여부(적극) 및 임대인이 3기 이상 차임연체를 이유로 임대차계약 해지권을 행사하였고 행사 당시에는 3기 이상 차임연체가 있었으나 해지 의사표시가 기재된 소장 부본이 임차인에게 송달되기 전에 임대인의 동의 없이 차임이 지급되어 차임연체액이 3기의 차임액에 달하지 않게 된 경우, 임대인의 계약해지권이 소멸하는지 여부(원칙적 소극)
Unofficial English translation
Whether the right to terminate a lease contract on the ground of rent delinquency as provided in Article 10-8 of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act arises immediately when the amount of delinquent rent reaches three installments of rent (affirmative), and where the lessor exercised the right to terminate the lease contract on the ground of a delinquency of three or more installments of rent and, although there was a delinquency of three or more installments of rent at the time of such exercise, rent was paid without the lessor's consent before a copy of the complaint stating the declaration of termination was served upon the lessee so that the amount of delinquent rent no longer reached three installments of rent, whether the lessor's right to terminate the contract is extinguished (in principle, negative)
Summary of the holding
상가건물 임대차보호법 제10조의8은 "임차인의 차임연체액이 3기의 차임액에 달하는 때에는 임대인은 계약을 해지할 수 있다."라고 규정하고 있다. 여기서 ‘임차인의 차임연체액이 3기의 차임액에 달하였는지’는 해지권의 발생요건이므로, 차임연체액이 3기의 차임액에 달하였다면 즉시 계약해지권은 발생하고, 계약해지의 의사표시가 임차인에게 도달한 시점, 즉 해지권 행사의 효력 발생 시점을 기준으로 3기의 차임액에 달하였는지를 판단할 것은 아니다. 따라서 임대인이 3기 이상 차임연체를 이유로 한 임대차계약 해지권을 행사하는 경우, 행사 당시 3기 이상 차임연체가 있었던 이상 해지 의사표시가 기재된 소장 부본이 임차인에게 송달되기 전에 임대인 동의 없이 일방적으로 차임이 지급되어 차임연체액이 3기의 차임액에 달하지 않게 되었다 하더라도 특별한 사정이 없는 한 임대인의 계약해지권이 소멸한다고 할 수는 없다.
Order
상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 피고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of the final appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
Provisions referred to
상가건물 임대차보호법 제10조의8
Read 2026-10-24 · Cross-read 2026-10-24. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger