It was reported on the 20th that in dwelling leases, landlords are increasingly claiming "actual residence" while tenants are demanding "contract renewal" and resulting in court disputes.
Such incidents have occurred since the introduction of a clause in the housing lease protection law revised in 2020, which states that "a landlord cannot refuse to renew the contract without just cause if the tenant requests it." This clause allows tenants to request a single contract renewal, although landlords can refuse if they are residing in the dwellings.
The problem is that there are no specific criteria established by law to determine whether actual residence applies. Consequently, various forms of disputes are arising between landlords and tenants. Court rulings have also been inconsistent.
◇ The first and second trials recognized "actual residence" while the Supreme Court found it "difficult to recognize," resulting in reversal and remand.
Landlord Mr. A attempted to evict tenant Mr. B on the grounds of actual residence, but Mr. B refused and filed a lawsuit. Initially, Mr. A claimed, "My family plans to live together in this house." However, after Mr. B filed the lawsuit, Mr. A changed his statement to, "My parents living in the countryside need to stay in this house for hospital visits."
In the first and second trials, landlord Mr. A won. The court ruled that "changing the party who resides in the dwellings does not render the refusal of contract renewal unlawful." However, the first and second trials did not determine the credibility of Mr. A's claim of actual residence.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court overturned the lower court's ruling and remanded the case to the Seoul High Court. The court stated, "If a landlord wishes to refuse contract renewal on the grounds of actual residence, they must prove that the intention to reside is not false."
Mr. A's family was living separately in two different houses. Preparing to move in together was essential. Nevertheless, Mr. A's family was not making any moving preparations. This could be seen as a situation that makes it difficult to recognize the claim of actual residence based on "plans for the family to live together."
Additionally, the Supreme Court did not accept Mr. A's claim that his parents needed to reside for hospital visits. Mr. A submitted his parents' outpatient appointment records from a nearby hospital. In response, the Supreme Court noted, "Mr. A's parents have received outpatient care only 1 to 5 times a year for the past 11 years," and added that it seemed difficult to recognize this as a reason for actual residence.
◇ Court: When a landlord changes, if the new owner intends to reside, contract renewal refusal is possible.
There are cases where the landlord changes after the tenant requests a contract renewal, typically due to the sale of the property. In such cases, the court held that if the new owner is recognized to have purchased the property with the intention to reside, they may refuse contract renewal.
Tenant Mr. C requested a contract renewal from the existing landlord before the lease expired. The existing landlord sent a notice stating, "The new owner Mr. D purchased the house for actual residence purposes, so the contract renewal is not possible." Thereafter, tenant Mr. C refused to vacate, leading to a lawsuit.
The Supreme Court stated, "If a new landlord intends to actually reside in the dwellings, they should be allowed to refuse contract renewal," favoring new owner Mr. D. The court recognized Mr. D's reason for actual residence based on the prior landlord's communication to tenant Mr. C and the fact that Mr. D was preparing to move from his previous home to the new one.
◇ Court: A landlord who deceives by claiming to reside holds liability for damages.
Last year, landlord Ms. E insisted on actual residence due to her child's high school admission issue and evicted tenant Ms. F. However, Ms. E rented the house to another tenant, leading Ms. F to discover the situation and file a lawsuit.
The Uijeongbu District Court upheld the first trial ruling that landlord Ms. E must pay 42.06 million won to former tenant Ms. F in the appeals trial. The court concluded, "The defendant (landlord) sent false messages, discouraging the plaintiff (tenant) from renewing the contract." It also stated, "The defendant (landlord) did not provide any evidence to confirm that her child applied to a nearby high school."
This ruling became final as neither party appealed.
A similar incident occurred in Seoul. Landlord Mr. H sent tenant Mr. G a message stating, "I need to move in this year, so contract renewal is difficult." Consequently, Mr. G did not request contract renewal and moved out. Four days later, Mr. H found another tenant and signed a lease agreement.
The court stated, "Mr. G trusted Mr. H's words and did not request contract renewal, but Mr. H's statements were false," and ruled that "Mr. H must pay damages of 22.5 million won to Mr. G."