Whether Article 7 of the Housing Lease Protection Act shall apply to a renewal contract after termination of a lease contract.

The provisions of Article 7 of the Housing Lease Protection Act shall apply only to cases where one of the parties requests an increase or decrease in the rent, etc. agreed upon during the continuation of a lease contract, and it shall not apply to cases where the rent, etc. is increased by the agreement of the parties even before the termination of a lease contract

Article 7 of the Housing Lease Protection Act

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and one other

Jeonju District Court Decision 92Na3567 delivered on May 20, 1993

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 7 of the Housing Lease Protection Act provides that when a rent or deposit agreed upon becomes unreasonable due to changes in circumstances thereafter, the parties concerned may request an increase or decrease in the rent or deposit in the future, and in the case of an increase, it shall not exceed the ratio set by the Presidential Decree. Thus, the above provision applies only when one of the parties concerned requests an increase or decrease in the rent, etc. agreed upon during the existence of a lease, and the above provision does not apply to cases where a contract is concluded after the termination of the lease or where the rent, etc. is increased by the agreement

Although the reasoning of the court below is somewhat insufficient, it is justified for the court below to exclude the above provision from the application of the above provision, considering that the increase in the rent of this case in the same purport is a case of increase in the lease contract again after the termination of the lease contract by the plaintiff and the defendants, and to reject the defendants' defenses seeking the above provision in excess of the annual rent paid by the defendants, the return of the paid portion and the simultaneous performance.

In addition, the court below rejected all the defendants' assertion that they have the defendants' right to purchase the appurtenances and the right to claim reimbursement for useful expenses. In light of the records, the above fact-finding and decision of the court below is acceptable, and there is no violation of law such as theory of lawsuit. The arguments are without merit.

Therefore, all appeals are 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 on the bench.

Justices Kim Jong-ju (Presiding Justice)