1. Case Overview

The plaintiff, as the tenants of the stores in question, incurred various maintenance and repair costs for each store due to legal amendments. Each lease agreement between the plaintiff and the defendants included special provisions limiting the landlord's repair obligations. However, the plaintiff argued that for the landlords to be exempt from repair obligations under these provisions, the repair obligations must be explicitly stated in the agreements. Since no specific mentions were found, and even if the provisions existed, major repairs, structural repairs, and replacements of essential facilities should still be borne by the landlords. The plaintiff, therefore, filed a lawsuit to claim these maintenance and repair costs from the defendants.


2. Key Issues in the Case

The main issues in this case were:

1) The nature of each lease agreement (i.e., master lease) regarding the stores in question;

2) Whether there were special provisions in each lease agreement exempting the landlord’s repair obligations and whether the content of the exempted obligations was explicitly stated; and

3) Whether the maintenance and repair items claimed by the plaintiff fell under major repairs, structural repairs, or replacements of essential facilities, which cannot be exempted by the special provisions.


3. Our Role and the Judgment

We, representing the defendants, strongly emphasized the following points:

1) Each lease agreement was a "master lease," where the tenant rents the entire building and manages it independently, including special provisions limiting the landlord’s repair obligations, with the content of the exempted obligations explicitly stated.

2) Given the nature of these lease agreements, the plaintiff did not pay management fees and had previously borne maintenance and repair costs for similar or much larger items;

3) The items claimed by the plaintiff were either required due to legal amendments or for the plaintiff's business purposes and did not constitute major repairs or replacements that the landlord could not exempt.

The court accepted most of our arguments and dismissed all of the plaintiff's claims.


4. Implications of the Judgment

This judgment reaffirms that in master lease arrangements, commonly used for large real estate leases, the landlord’s repair obligations can be exempted through special provisions. It also individually and specifically addressed whether the contested items (e.g., replacement of low-NOx burners for hot and cold water systems) constituted major repairs, structural repairs, or replacements of essential facilities. This judgment is expected to serve as a precedent in future lease-related disputes.


□ Attorneys in charge: Kim Byung-il and Park Sang-oh