Cases concerning the determination of the principle of no-household, which is an occupant requirement, in the termination and refusal of a lease contract for permanent rental housing;

The case holding that a lessor may not terminate a contract or refuse to renew a new contract unless he/she fails to meet the requirements for the tenant because the tenant owns another house during the contract or renewed lease term, unless the lease contract is deemed to have been concluded or renewed by fraudulent or other illegal means, after investigating whether the requirements for tenant have been met under the Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Rules on Operation and Management of Rental Housing.

Article 105 of the Civil Act, Articles 2 and 14 of the Rental Housing Act, Article 11 of the Enforcement Decree of the Rental Housing Act, Article 2-4 of the Enforcement Rule of the Rental Housing Act, Article 21-2, Article 29(4), and Article 31 of the Rules on Housing Supply.

Seoul Special Metropolitan City Urban Development Corporation (Seo Law Firm, Attorneys Park Sang-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Attorney Kim Yong-hoon, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul District Court Decision 2000Na67890 delivered on June 1, 2001

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The court below held that the above house was constructed for the purpose of permanent lease pursuant to the Housing Construction Promotion Act and the Rental Housing Act. The plaintiff was a 9-year rental house under the name of the non-party 1's head of the household and the non-party 2's head of the non-party 9-2's head of the non-party 9-2's head of the non-party 9-2's head of the non-party 9-2's head of the non-party 9-2's head of the non-party 9-2's head of the non-party 9-2's head of the non-party 9-2's head of the non-party 9-2's head of the non-party 9-2's head of the non-party 9-2's head of the non-party 9-party 9-party 9's head of the non-party 1's head of the non-party 9-party 1's head of the non-party 1'6-party.

2. However, we cannot accept the above judgment of the court below.

According to the old-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Rules on the Operation and Management of Rental Housing, the term of the basic residence contract of the permanent rental housing as in this case can be renewed on a two-year basis at the request of the tenant in the case where the requirements for the tenant continue to exist (Article 10), and the management entity shall conclude the contract after checking whether the tenant owns the house (Article 8(3) and (4) and take measures such as eviction when the tenant acquired another house or gets selected to move into the house (Article 11(1)2). According to the lease contract in this case, the contract shall be concluded on a two-year basis, and the contract may be renewed on a two-year basis at his wishes if the requirements for the tenant continue to exist. In the case of each subparagraph of Article 10, the contract may be terminated or refused, while the lease contract may be renewed by fraudulent or other illegal means (Article 7).

Comprehensively taking account of the above provisions, the Plaintiff shall enter into a lease contract or renew the lease contract after examining whether the requirements for residency have been met. Once the lease contract has been concluded or renewed by fraudulent or other illegal means, the Plaintiff may not terminate the contract or refuse to renew the new contract unless the lessee fails to meet the requirements for residency due to the fact that the occupant owns another house during the term of the contract concluded or renewed.

In this case, the court below also states that the ownership of ○○ apartment in the public record was in the non-party 1, who is the defendant's wife, due to the cause that occurred during the first lease period, but the cause that the new renewal was not occurred during the original lease period, and according to the records, the plaintiff was already aware of the above circumstances before the renewal of the lease contract and requested the defendant to submit explanatory materials, but later, the plaintiff was requested to renew the lease contract on December 22, 1997 without cancelling the lease contract or refusing the renewal of the contract, on the ground that there was a request from the head of the competent veterans branch office for the renewal of the lease contract, and was notified that the renewed lease contract was terminated on November 30, 199, before the expiration of the renewed lease period on November 30, 199. Thus, in light of the above legal principles, the plaintiff cannot be viewed as refusing the renewal of the lease contract without a new defect after the renewal of the lease contract.

Therefore, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the standard for determining a homeless householder under the instant lease agreement, or in the misapprehension of the contents of the contract. The ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

3. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Cho Cho-Un (Presiding Justice)