In a case where Party A entered into a contract with Party B to lease permanent rental housing with Party B, but Party B discovered that Party B’s legal spouse Byung acquired a multi-household house ownership as a result of computerized search as to whether Party B owned the house and the lessee came to own another house during the lease term, and notified Party B of the termination of the lease agreement pursuant to the provision that Party B may terminate the lease agreement, the case holding that Party B may not terminate the lease agreement by applying the provisions on termination of the contract, on the ground that Party B did not deal with the same household with Party B before and after the lease term, and there was any special circumstance that

In a case where Party A entered into a contract with Party B to lease permanent rental housing with Party B, and Party B discovered that Party B’s legal spouse Byung acquired a multi-household house ownership as a result of computer search, and Party B notified Party B’s termination of the lease agreement pursuant to the provision that Party B may terminate the lease agreement if the lessee becomes to own another house during the lease term, the case holding that Party C cannot terminate the lease agreement by applying the aforementioned provisions on the grounds that Party C’s de facto marital relationship with a third party for 26 years after Party C left the lease term, even if Party C owned a multi-household house during the lease term, there were special circumstances where Party C formed a de facto marital relationship with the third party for 26 years after Party C left the lease term and could not achieve the same household before and after Party A’s lease term without any contact with Party A.

Article 618 of the Civil Act; Article 2 Subparag. 9 of the Rules on Housing Supply

Korea Land and Housing Corporation (Law Firm One, Attorneys White-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Law Firm CSS, Attorneys Park Sang-ok, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2010Na4972 decided December 24, 2010

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the facts and records acknowledged by the court below, the defendant entered into a lease contract with the Korea National Housing Corporation that comprehensively succeeded to the rights and obligations of the plaintiff around April 1, 2008 (excluding the case of disposing of the relevant house within 6 months from the date of termination due to inheritance, judgment or marriage, etc.) with respect to the rent apartment (hereinafter "permanent rental housing of this case") 241 Dong-dong, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul (hereinafter "the permanent rental housing of this case") with the lease term from March 1, 2008 to February 28, 2010, lease deposit amount of KRW 10,89,000, monthly rent of KRW 112,910 (hereinafter "the lease contract of this case"). The above lease contract of this case where the tenant becomes to own another house during the lease term of this case (hereinafter "multi-household house of this case"), and the plaintiff can terminate the lease contract of this case (hereinafter "multi-household house of this case") on the ground that it becomes disqualified as a result of computerized search, etc.

Meanwhile, Article 2 Subparag. 9 of the Rules on Housing Supply applicable to the instant lease agreement provides that “The term “non-household” means the householder, including the householder (including the spouse of the householder who is not registered in the same resident registration card as the householder and the family members who form the same household with the same spouse) who does not own a house.”

Therefore, even if the defendant's spouse owns another house during the lease period, the lessor can terminate the lease contract of this case based on the contract termination clause of this case.

However, in light of the purpose of the supply system of rental housing to facilitate the smooth supply of permanent rental housing to homeless persons, and the purpose of the system that limits the eligibility of lessee for the publicly constructed rental housing, etc., if there are special circumstances, such as special circumstances where the spouse remains as a spouse under the formal law because the spouse did not deal with the same household as the householder before and after the lease period, and there is no possibility to achieve the future, it is reasonable to view that the spouse does not constitute grounds for termination of the contract as stipulated in the provisions for termination of the contract

However, according to the records, the apartment house of this case leased by the defendant to the plaintiff 40.32 m2, the defendant, after reporting the marriage with the non-party 1 on January 6, 1981, and the non-party 2 gave birth to the non-party 1 on August 13, 1983, the non-party 1 unilaterally went to the non-party 4 and did not return to the non-party 1. The defendant was able to file a divorce lawsuit against the defendant around 1984, and the non-party 1 was able to obtain the above non-party 5's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 3'.

In light of the above circumstances, even if Nonparty 1, the legal spouse of the defendant during the lease term of this case, owned the multi-household housing of this case, Nonparty 1, even though he was in possession of the multi-household housing of this case during the lease term of this case, there was a special circumstance that he did not deal with the same household as the defendant before and after the lease term of this case, because he formed a de facto marital relationship with a third party for 26 years after he was withdrawn on August 13, 1983, and did not contact with the defendant, and there was no possibility that the lease of this case may not be terminated by applying the termination clause of the contract of this case to this case.

Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the termination of the instant lease agreement was lawful on the ground that Nonparty 1, the spouse of the Defendant, owned another house during the instant lease period. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the grounds for termination of the lease agreement for permanent rental housing, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The allegation in the grounds of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Min Il-young (Presiding Justice)