In a case where: (a) a lessor, etc. entered into a contract with Byung, etc. on real estate which is the object of lease before the expiration of the term of the lease agreement that the lessor, etc. entered into with Byung, etc. before the expiration of the term of the lease agreement that the lessor, etc. entered into with Byung, etc.; (b) Byung, etc., upon the request of Eul, completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the said real estate; (c) Byung, etc. refused Eul’s request for renewal on the ground that Byung, etc. would actually reside; and (d) subsequently, Byung, etc. refused a request for renewal of the lease agreement; and (e) a lessee’s right to request renewal of the lease agreement prescribed in Article 6-3 of the Housing Lease Protection Act should be deemed as the basis of the lessor at the time of the lessee’s request for renewal of the lease agreement, and thus,

Before the expiration of the term of the lease agreement that the lessor Gap et al. concluded with the lessee Eul, the sales contract for the real estate, which is the object of the lease, was concluded with Byung et al., and Eul et al. completed the registration of ownership transfer for the said real estate even though Eul demanded the renewal of the lease agreement, Byung et al. refused Eul's request for renewal of the contract and sought the transfer of the real estate against

The case holding that since the right to request renewal of a contract under Article 6-3 of the Housing Lease Protection Act was introduced to strengthen the tenant's right to residence by the stable extension of the tenant's right to live in the housing area and the tenant's right to request renewal of the contract is not denied without any justifiable reason, the tenant's right to request renewal of the contract is the right to form the effect immediately by expressing the tenant's intent to renew the contract, and the tenant's right to request renewal of the contract is the right to request renewal of the contract under Article 6-3 (1) 8 of the Housing Lease Protection Act, "if the tenant (including lineal ascendant and descendant of the tenant) intends to reside in the housing area actually, the tenant's right to request renewal of the contract is not expected in the other tenant's subjective reason, and the tenant's right to request renewal of the lease contract is not legitimate under Article 6-3 (1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act because the tenant's right to request renewal of the contract is transferred after the tenant exercised his right to request renewal of the contract, and it is reasonable under Article 6-3 (3) of the Housing Lease Protection Act.

Article 618 of the Civil Act, Article 6-3(1)8, (3), and Article 10 of the Housing Lease Protection Act, and Article 2 of the Addenda ( July 31, 2020)

Plaintiff 1 and one other (Law Firm Sejong-do, Attorneys Hong-seok et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Attorney Kim-hee, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

February 18, 2021

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Upon arrival of February 21, 2021, the Defendant received KRW 305,000,000 from the Plaintiffs, and at the same time deliver the real estate listed in the separate sheet to the Plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 19, 2019, the Defendant leased the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) from Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2 as the lease deposit amount of KRW 305,000,000, and the period from February 22, 2019 to February 21, 2021 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

B. On August 11, 2020, the Plaintiffs entered into a sales contract with Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2 on the instant real estate (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer on November 12, 2020 as to each share of the said real estate.

C. On September 20, 2020, the Defendant sent to Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2 the phrase “it is possible to make a request for the renewal of the pre-paid contract. It is time for the Defendant to extend the pre-paid contract due to any circumstances.” Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2 sent an answer to Nonparty 1, who again sent the word “if the contract is understood, but it is difficult for the Defendant to exercise the right to claim a pre-paid contract.” The buyer (the Plaintiff) has become aware of the lessee’s interest. The buyer (the Defendant) entered into the contract and sent a house before the maturity when he comes to the phone. However, the Defendant sent an answer to Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2, who again sent the word “It is difficult for the Defendant to use the right to claim a pre-paid contract.”

D. On October 23, 2020 and November 13, 2020 of the same year, the Plaintiffs sent to the Defendant a certificate of content that “the Defendant notified the Defendant that he will be a director when the term of lease expires, and the Plaintiffs actually reside, and thus, refused the Defendant’s claim for renewal of the contract.”

[Reasons for Recognition] The entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6, 10, Eul evidence 1 to 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' assertion

A. At the time of the instant sales contract, the Plaintiffs repeatedly notified that they will purchase real estate for the purpose of real residence, and the Defendant expressed that they will not renew the contract after the expiration of the term of the lease contract. The Plaintiffs concluded a sales contract with trust and completed the registration of ownership transfer.

B. Since then, although the defendant demanded the renewal of contract by reversing his will, the plaintiffs are actually residing in the real estate of this case, and thus, they may refuse the defendant's request for renewal of contract.

C. Therefore, the defendant is obligated to deliver the instant real estate to the plaintiffs simultaneously with the return of the lease deposit from the plaintiffs.

3. Determination

A. Whether the Defendant agreed with the lessor or the Plaintiffs before the exemption from exercising the right to request contract renewal

The Housing Lease Protection Act (amended by Act No. 17470, Jul. 31, 2020) newly established the lessee's right to request the renewal of a contract (Article 6-3) enters into force on July 31, 2020. The relevant provision applies to the lease still in force at the time of the enforcement of the aforementioned Act (Article 2 of the Addenda), and the date when the plaintiffs' contract was concluded was enforced on August 11, 2020, and was before the Defendant's contract renewal request was possible. In light of the above circumstances, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiffs alone is insufficient to view that the Defendant acquired the right to request the renewal of the contract and granted trust to the Plaintiffs. Moreover, it is insufficient to view that the prior agreement that the lessee would not exercise the right to request the renewal of the contract was an agreement to exclude the lessee's rights against the lessee under the Act, and thus, it is not effective under Article 10 of the Housing Lease Protection Act.

B. Whether the plaintiffs can refuse the defendant's request for renewal of contract

1) We examine the purpose of introducing Article 6-3 of the Housing Lease Protection Act on the right to request the renewal of a lessee’s contract. Even in the case of the previous Housing Lease Protection Act, even if the object of lease is transferred, the transferee is deemed to succeed to the status of the lessor and thus, can assert the validity of the previous lease contract to the transferee in the case of the opposing lessee, and thereby, the lessee’s right to housing was guaranteed. The right to request the renewal of a contract under the Housing Lease Protection Act was introduced to strengthen the lessee’s

2) The lessee’s right to request renewal of the lease agreement is to achieve renewal of the lease agreement under the initiative of the lessee in light of the language, structure, and legislative intent of the lessee, and the lessor shall not refuse the lessee’s request for renewal of the contract without justifiable grounds. Therefore, the lessee’s right to request renewal is the right to form the effect immediately by expressing the lessee’s intent to renew the contract.

3) The reason for refusal to renew a lessor’s contract is indicated in each subparagraph of the proviso of Article 6-3(1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act, and the aforementioned subparagraph 8 provides that “Where a lessor (including a lineal ascendant and lineal descendant of a lessor) intends to reside in a leased house actually.” The remaining cases except the above subparagraph 8 include: (a) the lessee’s situation, such as delayed payment of rent or fraudulent act, etc.; or (b) the lessee’s concerns about the occurrence of a safety accident of the leased object or the removal and reconstruction plan, etc. from the time when the lease contract was concluded; (c) on the other hand, the reason for actual residence of the lessor is the subjective reason of the lessor that is difficult to predict in the lessee’

4) The purpose of introducing the renewal clause to strengthen the lessee’s right to housing, the legal nature of the right to request renewal of the contract, the reason for refusal to actually reside, the buyer may determine whether to enter into a sales contract after confirming in advance the existing lessee’s right to request renewal of the contract at the time of entering into the sales contract, and the period of exercise thereof. On the other hand, in cases where the lessee transferred the leased object after exercising his right to request renewal of the contract and the transferee can refuse it on the ground of the actual residence, the reason for amendment of the Housing Lease Protection Act for strengthening the right to housing should be seen as the basis for the lessor at the time of the lessee’s request for renewal of the contract.

5) In the instant case, the Defendant exercised the right to request the renewal of the contract before the Plaintiffs completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the instant real estate. Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2, a lessor at the time, did not have any justifiable grounds under each subparagraph of the proviso of Article 6-3(1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act. Therefore, the instant lease agreement was renewed pursuant to Article 6-3(3) of the Housing Lease Protection Act due to the Defendant’s exercise of the right to request the renewal of contract, and the Plaintiffs who acquired the object of lease thereafter cannot refuse it on the grounds of their actual residence.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Separate] List: omitted

Judges Cho Jong-Un