In a case where Gap corporation, which is a rental business operator of rental housing, demanded Eul, etc., who is a lessee, to increase the rental deposit and rent, sought confirmation against Eul, etc., on the ground that there is no ground for increase of the rental deposit, etc. stipulated in the lease agreement, the case affirming Eul, etc.’s claim on the ground that it is difficult to deem that there exists a ground for increase of the rental deposit, etc. stipulated in the lease agreement solely on the fact

In a case where Gap corporation, a rental business operator of rental housing, demanded Eul, etc., to increase the rental deposit and rent, and Eul, etc., asserted that there was no ground for increase of the rental deposit as stipulated in the lease agreement against Eul, the case affirming Eul, etc. on the ground that it is difficult to view that there was a ground for increase of the rental deposit, etc. as stipulated in the lease agreement solely based on the following facts, in light of the following: (a) it is recognized that the nationwide increase rate of housing price index in the preceding year was 2.86% and that the lease price of an apartment in the autonomous Gu where rental housing is located was partially increased; (b) the lease price of a part of apartment located in the same Dong as that of rental housing was reduced; and (c) the consumer price index related to the housing, waterworks

Article 618 of the Civil Act; Article 20(2) of the former Rental Housing Act (Amended by Act No. 11587, Dec. 18, 2012) (see current Article 44(2) of the Special Act on Private Rental Housing); Article 7 of the Housing Lease Protection Act

The list of plaintiffs listed in the attached Table 1 is as shown in the list (Attorney Jeong Jong-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 3 others (Attorney Park Jong-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

August 17, 2017

1. With respect to each lease agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendant as to each of the respective rental housing units stated in the plaintiffs' addresses listed in the separate sheet No. 1, it is confirmed that each of the corresponding amounts stated in the plaintiffs' "increased Rental Deposit" and "increased Substitute Deposit" in the separate sheet No. 2 attached to the plaintiffs' defendant

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

A. (1) From December 2012 to January 2013, the Plaintiffs and the Defendant concluded each lease agreement (hereinafter “each of the instant lease agreements”) with respect to each of the leased houses indicated in the Plaintiffs’ addresses in the attached Table 1 (hereinafter “instant rental housing”) among the instant rental housing units to be constructed by the Defendant on the ground in Gwangju Mine-gu ( Address 1 omitted).

(2) Each of the instant lease agreements was concluded by dividing two types A and B. The main contents of the instant lease agreement and type B lease agreement are as follows.

(4) The terms and conditions of the lease contract of Article 1 (1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act, which shall be 0,000,000 won per month for the lease deposit, or 10,000,000 won per annum for the lease, shall be 0,000,000 won for the lease under the provisions of 20,000,000, and the lease deposit shall be 0,000,000,000 won for the first time after the expiration of the term of the lease contract (30,000,000,000 won). (2) The lessee shall be 0,000,000,000,000,000 won for the lease deposit under the provisions of 20,00,000,000,00,000 won for the first time, and 0,00,000,00 won for the lease deposit under the provisions of the Housing Lease Protection Act.

(1) A lessor shall lease a lessee with the terms and conditions of the lease contract under the provisions of Article 1 (1) (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Lease Protection Act, the terms and conditions of which are 49,00,000 won per month for the lease deposit, or 40,000 won per month for the lease deposit, and the terms and conditions of which are 0,000,000 won for the first time after the expiration of the period of the lease contract (30,000 won). (2) A lessee shall be entitled to pay the lease deposit under the provisions of paragraph (1) two years and six months after the expiration of the period of the first lease contract for the lease contract (30,000,000 won for the lease deposit, 00,000 won for the lease deposit, two times after the remainder of the lease contract for the lease contract (1) (20,000,000 won for the lease contract for the first time after the expiration of the period of the lease contract.

B. Upon completion of the instant rental house from December 2014 to January 2015, the Plaintiffs paid 139,000,000 won (10,000,000 won for converted rental deposit + 39,000,000 won for monthly rent deposit + 137,000,000 won for converted rental deposit + KRW 39,000 for monthly rent deposit + KRW 39,000 for converted rental deposit) to the Defendant, and occupied the relevant rental house.

C. (1) On December 2015, the Defendant demanded the Plaintiffs to increase the deposit amount of KRW 7,000,000 in the case of Category A (the converted rental deposit of KRW 5,000,000 + monthly rent of KRW 2,00,000) and KRW 6,90,000 in the case of Category B (the converted rental deposit of KRW 4,90,000 + monthly rent of KRW 2,00,000).

(2) In around 2016, the Plaintiffs and the Defendant agreed to increase the KRW 6,950,000 for Category A (the converted rental deposit of KRW 5,00,000 + monthly substitute rent of KRW 1,950,00) and KRW 6,850,00 for Category B (the converted rental deposit of KRW 4,900,000 + monthly substitute rent of KRW 1,950,000), respectively, and the Plaintiffs paid the Defendant the deposit corresponding to the respective increased portion.

D. After that, around December 2016, the Defendant again demanded that the Plaintiffs increase the deposit amount in 2017 in the year of 6,000,000 for Category A (3,000,000 won for converted rental deposit + KRW 3,000,000 for monthly rent + KRW 5,940,000 for Category B (converted rental deposit + KRW 2,940,000 for converted rental deposit + KRW 3,000 for monthly rent).

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 4 (if there are virtual numbers, including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiffs

In relation to each of the instant lease agreements, there is no reason to increase the rental deposit and rent in 2017, and thus, the Plaintiffs do not bear the obligation to pay each corresponding amount as stated in the “increased Rental Deposit” and “increased Substitute Deposit” in the attached Table 2 attached hereto to the Defendant.

B. Defendant

Pursuant to each of the instant lease agreements, the Defendant has the right to request the Plaintiffs to increase the rental deposit and rent in 2017 as shown in the attached Table 2, reflecting 2.86% of the increase in the housing cost index in 2016.

3. Determination

A. Requirements for the defendant to exercise the right to claim the increase of the rental deposit and rent

(1) Article 5 of each of the instant lease agreements provides that “When there is a change in prices or other economic conditions between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, ② when there is a need to adjust the terms and conditions of lease between the leased housing units or between the rental housing units in the neighboring similar areas, ③ when there is a significant change in the prices of rental housing, incidental facilities, and sites, the lease deposit, rent, etc. may be adjusted.”

(2) Furthermore, Article 20(2) of the former Rental Housing Act (amended by Act No. 11587, Dec. 18, 2012) provides that “where a rental business operator of a rental house claims an increase of the rental deposit or rent, he/she shall take into account the house price index, the lease price fluctuation rate in the neighboring area, etc. within the scope prescribed by the Housing Lease Protection Act.” Article 7 of the Housing Lease Protection Act provides that “If the rent or deposit agreed upon by a party becomes inappropriate due to the increase or decrease of taxes, public charges and other burdens on the leased house, or fluctuations in economic conditions, he/she may request an increase or decrease thereof in the future.”

(3) In full view of the above laws and the provisions of each of the lease agreements in this case, the defendant may claim the increase of the lease deposit and the rent if there are the grounds stipulated in Article 5 of each of the lease agreements in this case. However, if the parties have not agreed on the grounds for increase and the scope thereof and should be decided in a trial, the defendant shall bear the burden of proving the increase.

(b) Whether any reason exists to increase the rental deposit and rent;

(1) According to the overall purport of Gap evidence 7, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, 3, and 4 and the overall purport of the pleadings, the fact that the national housing price index increase rate in 2016 from October 1, 2015 to September 30, 2016 is 2.86%, and the fact that the entire apartment price in the area of Gwangju Mine-gu where the instant rental housing is located has partially increased by around 2016.

(2) However, in full view of the following circumstances that can be seen by comprehensively taking into account the aforementioned basic facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 7 through 10, and Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 4 as a whole, the facts acknowledged above alone are difficult to deem that there exist grounds to increase the security deposit and rent as stipulated in Article 5 of each of the instant lease agreements in 2017, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

① Around 2016, the total rent index of Gwangju Mine-gu increased from 100.1 to 100.9, however, the total rent index of some apartment buildings located in the Gwangju Mine-dong where rental housing in this case is located was lowered.

② Since the consumer price index (the price index that does not reflect the weight by item) related to housing, water, electricity, and fuel in the Gwangju Metropolitan City area around 2016 maintained below 100, it is difficult to deem that it constitutes “when there is any change in the price or any other economic condition” to increase the rental deposit and rent of the instant rental housing solely on the ground that the increase in the housing price index in 2016 was 2.86%.

③ In the case of the instant rental housing located in the Gwangju Mine-gu ( Address 2 omitted), the converted rental deposit from January 20, 2015 to February 28, 2017, and monthly rent of KRW 85,50,000, and monthly rent of KRW 388,00, it is difficult to view that it constitutes “when it is necessary to adjust the terms and conditions of lease among the rental housing in the neighboring neighboring neighboring areas.”

④ Meanwhile, even if the Plaintiffs were able to enter into a lease agreement by selecting the standard rental deposit and standard rent at the time of entering into each of the instant lease agreements, they concluded each of the instant lease agreements with the Defendant and entered into the instant lease agreement with a large-amount converted rental deposit and substitute rent deposit for conversion. From December 2014 to January 2015, the Plaintiffs moved into the instant rental housing.

In addition, the term of the instant lease is 30 months from the date following the end of the initial period of designation of occupancy, and the Plaintiffs accepted the Defendant’s demand to increase the rental deposit and rent around 2016, which was one year after moving into the instant rental house, and additionally paid the Defendant KRW 6,950,000 in the case of Category A, and KRW 6,850,00 in the case of Category B.

Nevertheless, the defendant again demands that the plaintiffs increase the deposit amount in 2017 in the case of Category A, and KRW 6,000,000 in the case of Category B, and KRW 5,940,00 in the case of Category B.

(3) Therefore, there is no corresponding amount of the Plaintiffs’ respective payment obligations indicated in the Plaintiffs’ “increased deposit increase” and “increased deposit” as indicated in the [Attachment 2] List against the Defendant, and as long as the Defendant contests this, there is a benefit to seek confirmation from the Plaintiffs.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims are justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment 1] List of Plaintiffs: omitted

[Attachment 2] Omitted

Judges Go Jin-jin (Presiding Judge)