[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)

Transitional Intervention

The next day (Law Firm Dasan, Attorneys Choi Jin-hwan et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Incheon District Court Decision 2003Na 11387 Decided July 22, 2004

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

1. Fact-finding and judgment of the court below

A. Comprehensively taking account of the selected evidence, the court below acknowledged that the non-party 3 company (hereinafter referred to as "non-party 2 company") did not purchase the apartment of this case constructed on December 16, 200 under the Rental Housing Act as 28,598,00, monthly rent of 60, and rent of 00 from July 16, 200 to July 15, 201, the plaintiff purchased the apartment of this case from the non-party 3 company on September 13, 2001 and completed the registration of ownership transfer on January 22, 2002, Article 5 of the Standard Lease Contract concluded between the non-party 2 and the defendant on December 16, 200, under the same condition that the non-party 3 company would not purchase the apartment of this case as the non-party 2 company's rent of this case, 200, 300, 300, 160, 206, 20, 206,

B. Based on the above facts, the court below determined that the term of the lease contract of this case is less than two years, and deemed that the term of the lease contract of this case is less than two years pursuant to Article 4(1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act, and that the term of the lease expires on July 15, 2002. Since the defendant did not comply with the notification of the re-contract concluded on February 21, 2002 within the term of notification under Article 6(1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act, the lease contract of this case was terminated on July 15, 202. Meanwhile, Article 5 of the Standard Lease Contract only provides for the requirements and procedures for the change of the term of lease and does not impose the obligation to adjust the rent of this case on the lessee, and even if the defendant did not comply with the standard lease contract, the plaintiff's assertion that the renewal of the lease contract of this case cannot be denied on the ground that the plaintiff's right to request renewal of the lease contract of this case can not be denied on the ground that it violated the standard lease contract of Article 10.

2. Judgment of the Supreme Court

However, we cannot accept the above decision of the court below for the following reasons.

According to Article 18 (1) and (3) of the Rental Housing Act, any 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 concluded by using a standard lease contract. Article 10 (1) of the Standard Rental Housing Act (Enforcement Rule of the Rental Housing Act, Article 8, Form 10) provides that where a lessee commits an act falling under any of the subparagraphs of Article 10 (1) of the Rental Housing Act, the lessor may terminate the 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 lease contract or refuse to renew the lease contract if the lessee wishes to renew the lease contract unless there are any special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da608, Jun. 25, 199; 607Da62058, Apr. 25, 2005).

However, according to the records, although the non-party company, which is the former rental business operator, expressed the intention of selling the apartment in lots in the era where the mandatory rental period has expired, and some lessees submitted the written consent for selling the apartment in lots, there was a dispute with the lessee regarding the pre-sale conversion price, etc., and there was also a dispute over the performance of repair obligation, such as restoration of welfare facilities in the apartment complex to its original state, replacement of boiler, etc., and there was no dispute between the lessor and the lessee. Thus, even if the defendant refused the plaintiff's request to renew the lease contract according to the increased lease deposit and monthly rent, it did not express the intent of not want to purchase the apartment in the case of selling the apartment in lots and to renew the lease contract in the case of selling the apartment in lots. However, it is sufficient to view that the non-party company requested the renewal of the lease contract in this case as well as the lessor's request for the sale in lots of the apartment in this case, and at the same time, expressed the intention of opposing

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 if the details of the report are deemed significantly unfair compared to similar rental housing in the vicinity or if the details of the report are deemed inappropriate under the relevant 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 and Article 5 of the Housing Lease Protection Act provide that the tenant and the lessee may adjust the terms and conditions of lease deposit and rent in specific cases, and Article 5 of the Standard Lease Contract provide that the tenant and the lessee may be the other party to the unilaterally changed terms and conditions of lease.

Nevertheless, the court below did not properly examine whether the defendant had an intention to renew the lease contract of this case on the ground that Article 10 of the Standard Lease Contract does not apply to the case where the defendant did not comply with the request of the plaintiff to conclude the lease contract according to the changed terms and conditions of lease, or that the plaintiff may refuse to renew the lease contract of this case on the ground that Article 10 (1) 8 of the Standard Lease Contract constitutes "a case where he violated the obligations under the Standard Lease Contract" or "a case where he violated the obligations under the Standard Lease Contract". Thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the grounds for refusing the renewal of the lease contract under the Rental Housing Act, or which affected the judgment.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment 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 on the bench.

Justices Yoon Jae-sik (Presiding Justice)