Whether a lessor of a rental house subject to the former Rental Housing Act may refuse to renew the lease contract even in cases where there is no reason falling under any subparagraph of Article 10(1) of the Standard Lease Contract stipulated in Article 21 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act (negative in principle), and whether the lessor may refuse to renew the lease contract even in cases where the lessee’s creditor is issued a seizure and collection order against the lessee’s right to claim the refund of the lease deposit (negative)

According to Article 32(1) and (3) of the former Rental Housing Act (wholly amended by Act No. 13499, Aug. 28, 2015; hereinafter “former 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 Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, and a rental business operator and a lessee shall enter into a lease contract entered into by using a standard lease contract. Article 21(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act (attached Form 20) of the former Rental Housing Act (Attached Form 20) provides that where a lessee commits an act falling under any of the subparagraphs of Article 21(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, a lessor may cancel or terminate the relevant lease contract, or refuse to renew the relevant lease contract, unless there is any special reason falling under any subparagraph of Article 10(1) of the former Rental Housing Act.

In addition, it is difficult to view that the lessor may refuse the renewal of the lease contract as the special circumstance where the lessor issued a seizure and collection order against the lessee’s right to claim the refund of the lease deposit.

Article 27(1) of the former Rental Housing Act (wholly amended by Act No. 13499, Aug. 28, 2015); Article 32(1) (see current Article 45(1) of the Special Act on Private Rental Housing and Article 49-3(1) of the Special Act on Public Housing (see current Article 47(1) of the Special Act on Private Rental Housing and Article 49-2(1) and (3) of the Special Act on Public Housing; Article 21(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Rental Housing Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 26763, Dec. 28, 2015); Article 44(1) of the Special Act on Private Rental Housing; Article 20(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Special Act on Private Rental Housing (see current Article 44(1) of the Special Act on Private Rental Housing; Article 20(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Special Act on Private Rental Housing; Article 20(1) [Attachment 2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Special Act on Public Housing]

Supreme Court Decision 91Da22902 Decided October 22, 1991 (Gong1991, 2805) Supreme Court Decision 93Da27161 Decided January 11, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 689) Supreme Court Decision 2005Da8002 Decided April 29, 2005 (Gong2005Sang, 840), Supreme Court Decision 2016Da241805, 241812 Decided February 8, 2018 (Gong2018Sang, 553)

Korea Land and Housing Corporation (Law Firm Sil Law, Attorneys Seo Sung-sung et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant

Gwangju District Court Decision 2019Na58505 Decided December 13, 2019

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. A. Article 32(1) and (3) of the former Rental Housing Act (wholly amended by Act No. 13499, Aug. 28, 2015; hereinafter “former Rental Housing Act”) provides that a person who intends to enter into a lease contract for a rental house shall use a standard lease contract prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, and a rental business operator and a lessee shall comply with a lease contract entered into by using the standard lease contract. Article 21(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act (Attached Form 20) provides that where a lessee commits an act falling under any of the subparagraphs of Article 21(1) of the same Act (Attached Form 20) provides that a lessor may cancel or terminate the relevant lease contract, or refuse to renew the lease contract, unless there is a reason falling under any of the subparagraphs of Article 10(1) of the said Standard Rental Housing Act (hereinafter “former Rental Housing Act”).

B. In addition, considering all the following circumstances, it is difficult to view that the lessor’s issuance of a seizure and collection order against the lessee’s creditor regarding the right to claim the return of the security deposit constitutes a special circumstance where the lessor may refuse the renewal of the lease contract.

1) In the case of a rental house to which the Rental Housing Act applies, the sale is restricted during the mandatory rental period. As seen earlier, a lessor may not cancel, terminate, or refuse to renew a lease contract as long as a lessee wishes to renew the lease contract during the mandatory rental period.

2) Article 9 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Rental Housing Construction Promotion Act, enacted by Act No. 3783 on December 31, 1984, stipulated the grounds for rejecting the renewal of a lease agreement of a lessor under the delegation of Article 9 of the same Act, and Article 18(1) and (3) of the former Rental Housing Act, as the Act was wholly amended by Act No. 4629 on December 27, 1993, a person who intends to enter into a lease agreement on a rental housing under Article 18(1) and (3) shall use and comply with the standard lease agreement prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation. Article 10(1) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Rental Housing Construction Promotion Act (attached Form 10 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act) explicitly lists the grounds for rejecting the renewal of a lease agreement of a lessor under Article 10(1) of the same Act, and Article 27(1) of the same Enforcement Rule provides for the renewal of a lease agreement and other reasons under each subparagraph 16(2) of the same Act.

3) At the time of enforcing the former Rental Housing Construction Promotion Act, the precedents held that “A lessor of a rental house subject to the Housing Construction Promotion Act may terminate the relevant lease contract or refuse to renew the lease contract if there are reasons under each subparagraph of Article 9 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, and in the absence of special circumstances, a lessor shall not refuse to renew the lease contract and shall be deemed to have renewed the relevant lease contract unless he/she wishes to renew it (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da22902 delivered on October 22, 1991, etc.).” (See Supreme Court Decision 91Da22902 delivered on October 22, 1991, etc.) strictly interpreted the reasons for refusal of renewal as a restrictive provision, rather than an example, where a lessee’s request for renewal of a lease contract is within the period of sale restriction (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Da27161 delivered on January 11, 1994, etc.).

4) According to Article 21(1) and (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Rental Housing Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26749, Dec. 22, 2015), the first lease deposit for rental housing constructed upon approval of a project plan pursuant to Article 16 of the Housing Act among the publicly constructed rental housing is relatively small, since the first lease deposit for rental housing constructed upon approval of a project plan pursuant to Article 16 of the Housing Act cannot exceed the standard lease deposit determined and publicly notified by the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, it is difficult to deem that a claim for refund of such rental deposit has no importance of property nature and security as a claim, and it is necessary to guarantee its function and value as a means of financing. Meanwhile, a claim for return of a lease deposit corresponding to the amount preferentially reimbursed pursuant to Article 8 of the Housing Lease Protection Act and Article 10(1)6 of the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Lease Protection Act is prohibited, and in such a case, the effect of a seizure and collection order is not recognized.

2. The court below rejected the plaintiff's request for the renewal of the lease contract of this case on the ground that the lease contract of this case on the rental housing to which the former Rental Housing Act applies cannot be denied on the ground that the lease contract of this case was terminated due to the renewal of the lease contract, since the non-party Deposit Insurance Corporation received a seizure and collection order on the defendant's claim for the return of the lease deposit against the plaintiff and requested the renewal of the lease contract to the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff's claim that the lease of this case terminated due to the renewal of the lease contract of this case is not a ground for refusing the renewal of the lease contract of this case on May of the lease contract of this case.

3. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the renewal of a lease agreement, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal

4. 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 on the bench.

Justices Noh Tae-tae (Presiding Justice)