[1] Where a lessor of a rental house subject to the Rental Housing Act terminates the lease contract or refuses to renew the contract

[2] The case holding that it is sufficient to view that the lessor, who is subject to the Rental Housing Act, did not comply with the lessor’s request to renew the lease contract according to the increased lease deposit and monthly rent, but in light of the overall circumstances, it is not expressed that the lessor does not want to renew the lease contract, but expressed his/her intent to object to the unilateral change in the terms and conditions of lease by the lessor

[3] The case holding that if a lessee of a rental house subject to the Rental Housing Act fails to comply with a rental business operator's request for a re-contract under the Rental Housing Act because he/she did not consent to a unilateral change in terms and conditions of lease, it shall not be deemed that

[1] Article 18 of the Rental Housing Act, Article 8 of the Enforcement Rule of the Rental Housing Act, Article 6 of the Housing Lease Protection Act / [2] Article 6 of the Housing Lease Protection Act / [3] Articles 16 and 18 of the Rental Housing Act, Article 14 (1) and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Rental Housing Act, Article 8 of the Enforcement Rule of the Rental Housing Act (attached Form 10), Article 7 of the Housing Lease Protection Act, Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Lease Protection Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 91Da22902 delivered on October 22, 1991 (Gong1991, 2805), Supreme Court Decision 93Da27161 delivered on January 11, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 689), Supreme Court Decision 9Da6708, 6715 delivered on June 25, 199 (Gong199Ha, 149Ha, 1497), Supreme Court Decision 2005Da8002 delivered on April 29, 2005 (Gong205Sang, 840)

Thailand

Park-Hypon (Law Firm Dasan General Law Office, Attorneys Choi Jin-hwan et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Incheon District Court Decision 2004Na2939 delivered on July 22, 2004

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Facts of recognition;

Comprehensively considering the evidence adopted by the court below, the facts duly admitted are as follows.

A. On December 16, 200, New Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Nonindicted Co., Ltd.”) leased the instant apartment to the Defendant, a household of the age apartment of the publicly constructed rental housing constructed pursuant to the Rental Housing Act, with the lease deposit of KRW 12,689,00, monthly rent of KRW 193,30, and the lease period of May 14, 2000 to May 13, 2001.

B. On November 12, 2001, the Plaintiff decided to succeed to the status of the rental business operator from the non-party company, and purchased the instant apartment and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Plaintiff on February 9, 2002.

C. On February 15, 2002, pursuant to Article 16 of the Rental Housing Act on behalf of the Plaintiff and other rental business operators, the non-party company reported to the competent administrative agency that it would raise the deposit for the lease of a usual apartment as well as the instant apartment as KRW 13,196,000, monthly rent, and KRW 201,00. On April 8, 2002, the Plaintiff sent a written notification demanding the Defendant to renew the contract under the above conditions. However, the Defendant did not comply with the Plaintiff’s request for renewal even after receiving the said notification at that time.

D. Article 5 of the Standard Lease Agreement entered into between the non-party company and the defendant provides that when there is a change in prices or other economic conditions, ② when there is a need to adjust the balance of the terms and conditions of lease between the leased housing and the period of rental housing in a neighboring similar area, ③ when there is a significant change in the value of the rental housing, incidental facilities and the site, the lessor and the lessee may adjust the rental deposit, rent, management fee or rent and payment for the lease to the extent that it does not violate the Rental Housing Act and the Housing Lease Protection Act, and Article 10(1)8 provides that the lessor may cancel the lease contract or refuse the renewal of the lease contract when the lessee violates

2. The judgment of the court below

Based on the above facts, the court below held that the lease contract of this case was terminated on May 13, 2002 because the term of the lease contract of this case is less than two years, and the term of the lease of this case is less than two years pursuant to Article 4 (1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act, and the term of the lease expires on May 13, 2002. Since the defendant did not comply with the notification of the renewal of the lease contract made on April 8, 2002 within the term of notification under Article 6 (1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act, the contract of this case was terminated on May 13, 2002. On the other hand, Article 5 of the Standard Lease Contract only provides for the requirements and procedures for the alteration of the terms and conditions, but it did not impose the obligation to adjust the rent of this case on the lessee, and thus, the plaintiff's rejection of the request for renewal of the lease contract of this case can not be denied on the ground that the plaintiff's request for renewal of the lease contract of this case was rejected.

3. Judgment of the Supreme Court

However, this decision of the court below is not acceptable.

A. According to Article 18(1) and (3) of the Rental Housing Act, a person who intends to enter into a lease contract for a rental house shall use a standard lease contract prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation, and a rental business operator and a lessee shall comply with a lease contract entered into by using a standard lease contract. Article 10(1) of the Standard Rental Housing Act (Enforcement Rule of the Rental Housing Act, Article 8 and Form 10) provides that where a lessee commits an act falling under any of the subparagraphs of the same paragraph, the lessor may terminate the relevant lease contract or refuse to renew the lease contract. Thus, with respect to a rental house subject to the Rental Housing Act, the lessor may terminate the relevant lease contract or refuse to renew the lease contract unless there is a special reason to the contrary (see Supreme Court Decision 200Da825, Apr. 29, 2005).

B. However, according to the records, although the former rental business entity expressed an intention of sale in lots on the apartment of the age in which the mandatory rental period has expired, some lessees including the Defendant presented a written consent for sale in lots, the pre-sale conversion price etc. was not approved by the competent authority, and there was a dispute over the performance of repair obligations, such as restoration of welfare facilities in the apartment complex to the original state and replacement of boiler between the lessees including the Defendant and the non-party company. Under such circumstances, the lessor including the Plaintiff, who succeeded to the status of rental business entity from the non-party company, unilaterally increased lease deposit and monthly rent to the competent authority without individual consultation with the lessee, and requested the lessee including the Defendant to conclude a re-contract pursuant to the changed terms and conditions. However, even though the Defendant did not conclude a re-contract with the Plaintiff on the grounds of the non-party company’s non-performance of repair obligations and succession of the pre-sale agreement concluded with the non-party company, it is sufficient to view that the lessor did not comply with the request of the Plaintiff to renew the lease agreement of this case.

C. In addition, Article 16(1) and (3) of the Rental Housing Act provides that matters concerning the terms and conditions of lease shall be reported to the head of the competent Si/Gun/Gu (Article 16(1) and (3) of the Act, and Article 14(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act provides that the head of the competent Si/Gun/Gu may recommend adjustment of the terms and conditions of lease in cases where the details of the report are deemed significantly unfair compared to similar rental houses in the vicinity or where the details of the report are deemed inappropriate under the related Acts and subordinate statutes (Article 16(2) of the Act and Article 14(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act). Article 7 of the Housing Lease Protection Act and Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Lease Protection Act limit the claims for increase of the rent or deposit of leased house within a specified scope. As seen earlier, Article 5 of the Standard Rental Housing Act provides that a lessor and a lessee can adjust the terms and conditions of lease and rent, and it does not include the obligation to be unilaterally changed to the other party.

D. Therefore, in light of the above legal principles, although the lease contract of this case for the apartment was not fulfilled by the defendant, even though the defendant did not voluntarily refuse to renew the lease contract or violate the duty under the standard lease contract, it shall be deemed that the lease contract of this case was implicitly renewed pursuant to Article 16 (1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act, unless the defendant voluntarily expresses his/her intention to refuse to renew the lease contract or does not violate the duty under the standard lease contract. However, the court below's determination that the lease contract of this case can be terminated at the expiration of the lease term without implied renewal or the plaintiff's refusal to renew the lease contract due to the reasons falling under Article 10 (1) 8 of the Standard Lease Protection Act due to the absence of the reason under Article 10 (1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act. Thus, the ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

4. Conclusion

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 for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yang Sung-tae (Presiding Justice)