The term of a lease agreement explicitly renewed on the same date as the application of Article 4 of the Housing Lease Protection Act amended on December 30, 1989

In cases where a housing lease contract is implicitly renewed on December 30, 1989, the term of lease should be deemed to have been renewed under the same conditions (excluding the term of lease) as that of the previous lease. Therefore, the existing lease contract which was still in existence at the time of the enforcement of the Housing Lease Protection Act amended on December 30, 1989 on the same date shall not continue, but a lease contract separate from the previous one shall be deemed to have commenced after the enforcement of the Act. Therefore, there is no room for applying the former Housing Lease Protection Act to this case, and the provisions of Article 4 of the amended Housing Lease Protection Act shall be applied, and the said contract shall be deemed to have been a two-year term, since the term of lease is not fixed.

Article 4 (1), Article 6 (1), and Article 6 (4) of the Addenda to the Housing Lease Protection Act

Supreme Court Decision 91Da25758 delivered on January 17, 1992 (dong) 91Da25765 delivered on January 17, 1992 (dong)

Attorney Park Young-gu, Counsel for the defendant-appellant of Gyeongnam General Construction Corporation

Defendant

Msan District Court Decision 91Na166 delivered on June 4, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

As to the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the lease contract of this case was renewed under the same conditions as before the expiration of the above period pursuant to Article 6 (1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act due to the plaintiff's failure to notify the defendant of rejection of renewal or to notify the defendant that he will not renew without changing the conditions or notification of rejection of renewal during six months before December 30, 1989, which is the expiration date of the lease term, and in this case, the lease term of this case was two years as stipulated in Article 4 (1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act (amended by Act No. 4188, Dec. 30, 1989).

As in the above case, a lease contract which is implicitly renewed shall be deemed to have been renewed under the same conditions (excluding the term of existence) as that of the previous lease. Thus, it shall not continue with the previous lease contract which was in existence at the time of enforcement of the amended Housing Lease Protection Act (Article 6(1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act and Article 639(1) of the Civil Act), but it shall be deemed that a lease contract separate from the previous lease contract was commenced after its enforcement. Therefore, there is no room for application of the former Housing Lease Protection Act and the amended Housing Lease Protection Act shall be applied. Accordingly, the above contract is a lease contract with no fixed term of time, and its term of lease shall be deemed to be two years pursuant to Article 4

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles, such as theory of lawsuit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice) Park Young-dong Kim Jong-ho