The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1.(a)

According to Article 32(1) and (3) of the former Rental Housing Act (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 comply with a lease contract entered into by using the standard lease contract. Article 10(1) of the former Rental Housing Act (amended by the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, Article 21 and Form 20) provides that a lessee may cancel or terminate the relevant lease contract, or refuse to renew the lease contract, unless the lessee wishes to renew the lease contract, with respect to a rental house subject to the former Rental Housing Act, the lessor may cancel or terminate the relevant lease contract, or refuse to renew the lease contract unless there is a special reason to the contrary. 10(1) of the said Standard Rental Housing Act.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Da8002, Apr. 29, 2005; 2016Da241805, 241812, Feb. 8, 2018). 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 right to claim the return of the lease deposit constitutes a special circumstance where the lessor can 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 wishes to renew a rental contract during the mandatory rental period.