2020Da202371 Building Name Doz.

Korea Land and Housing Corporation

Law Firm Sil Law Firm, Counsel for defendant-appellant

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 and 3 others

Defendant

Gwangju District Court Decision 2019Na58505 Decided December 13, 2019

May 28, 2020

The appeal shall be dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds for appeal are determined.

1. A. According to Articles 32(1) and 32(3) of the former Housing Act (amended by Act No. 13499, Aug. 28, 2015; hereinafter referred to as the "former Housing Act"), a person who intends to enter into a lease agreement on a rental housing shall use a standard lease agreement prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, and a rental business operator and a lessee shall enter into a lease agreement entered into by using the standard lease agreement. Article 10(1) of the former Rental Housing Act (amended by Enforcement Rule of the same Act, Article 21 and Form 20) provides that a lessee may cancel or terminate the relevant lease agreement, or refuse to renew the lease agreement if he/she wishes to do so, 208 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Da10845, Apr. 28, 201).

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 to claim the return of the rental deposit constitutes a special circumstance that the lessor may refuse the renewal of the lease contract. (1) In the case of the leased housing subject to the Housing Act, the sale is restricted during the mandatory rental period. As such, the lessor may not cancel, terminate, or refuse the renewal of the lease contract as long as the lessee wishes to renew the lease contract during the mandatory rental period.

2) The former Enforcement Decree of the Housing Construction Promotion Act enacted by Act No. 3783, Dec. 31, 1984; 2. Article 9 of the former Enforcement Rule of the same Act was amended by Act No. 4629, Dec. 27, 1993; 2. Article 18 subparag. 1 and 3 of the former Rental Housing Act provides that a person who wishes to enter into a lease contract for rental housing shall use and comply with the standard lease agreement prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation; 2. Article 10 subparag. 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Rental Housing Act (amended by Act No. 1065, Mar. 21, 2008; Ordinance No. 1065, Oct. 16, 2008; Ordinance No. 1065, Jan. 28, 2008; Ordinance No. 2010, Jan. 26, 2016>

4) According to Articles 21(1) and 21(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26749, Dec. 22, 2015), the first lease deposit for a leased house constructed with approval of a project plan pursuant to Article 16 of the Housing Act among the public constructed rental housing is relatively small, and thus, it cannot exceed the standard lease deposit determined and publicly notified by the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport. Therefore, it is difficult to view that the repayment claim for such rental deposit is not necessary to guarantee the function and value of means of financing because the property nature as a bond and its importance as a security are insignificant. Meanwhile, the repayment claim for the portion equivalent to the amount to be preferentially repaid 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 falls under the prohibition of seizure claim, and it cannot be recognized as a collection order in such cases where the whole or part of the claim to return the rental deposit falls under the scope of prohibition of seizure.

2. As to the instant lease agreement on the rental housing subject to the former Rental Housing Act, the lower court: (a) as long as Nonparty Deposit Insurance Corporation received a seizure and collection order on the Defendant’s claim to return the lease deposit against the Plaintiff, and requested the Plaintiff to renew the lease contract, the Plaintiff cannot set up a defense against the Deposit Insurance Corporation due to the renewal of the lease contract; and (b) the instant lease agreement has been terminated due to the expiration

As to the plaintiff's assertion, the ground alleged by the plaintiff does not constitute grounds for refusing the renewal of the lease contract under Article 10 (1) of the General Terms and Conditions of 5. Agreement of this case. Thus, the plaintiff cannot refuse the renewal of the lease contract on the grounds of the same circumstance as the plaintiff's assertion. Thus, the plaintiff rejected the plaintiff's request for delivery of the rental housing of this case on the grounds of the expiration of the lease term.

3. Examining the reasoning of the judgment of the original court in light of the aforementioned legal principles and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the renewal of a lease agreement, contrary to what is 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.

Justices Noh Tae-tae

Justices Kim Jae-hyung

Justices Min You-sook of the District Court

Justices Lee Dong-won