"I want to live more" "leave the room"... Daebeop, the new landlord raised his hand

<Anchor>

Several conflicts ensued regarding the Housing Lease Protection Act, and the first Supreme Court ruling came out saying that if a new landlord who bought a so-called 'house rented house' tries to live in it, he can reject the existing tenant's contract renewal request.

In the meantime, there was a lot of confusion because the rulings were different, but the standard was presented. 

Let's look at reporter Park Chan-geun's report first.

<Reporter>

In October 2020, Mr. A, a tenant of an apartment in Seoul, asked the landlord to renew the contract.

However, the landlord had already signed a contract to hand over the apartment to person B.

Mr. B, the new landlord who took over the ownership, refused Mr. A's request, saying that he would live in the house.

However, tenant A did not vacate the house, and Mr. B filed a lawsuit.

The issue was the interpretation of the right to claim renewal of the lease contract, which came into effect in July 2020.

The tenant can apply for renewal of the contract once against the landlord, and the landlord can refuse only when there is a legitimate reason such as the actual residence.

However, when the tenant requested to renew the contract, the question was whether the new landlord who took over ownership could ask the tenant to leave because of the actual residence.

The judgments of the 1st and 2nd trials were mixed.

The first trial raised the hand of the new landlord, saying that the sale of the existing landlord's apartment was a reason for making it difficult to continue the lease.

The Supreme Court, like the first trial, raised the hand of the new landlord.

It was interpreted that while taking over the ownership, the existing landlord's right to refuse renewal was also inherited.

[Lee Hyeon-bok/Supreme Court Public Relations Trial Researcher: (Before the contract of sale) Even if the tenant requested the renewal of the contract (the fact that the right of refusal can be exercised) does not change, this judgment was the first to explicitly declare It is meaningful.]

---

<Anchor>

Let's talk more with reporter Park Chan-geun.

[Reporter Park Chan-geun: When the Lease Protection Act came into force in July 2020, when you bought a house with tenants, it was not clear whether you could live in it right away, so there was confusion.

If the tenant requested the existing landlord to renew the contract, there was no standard for whether the tenant could be evicted.

The Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport announced guidelines in September 2020 that new landlords cannot refuse tenants' contract renewal requests, but in the courts, each judge had different judgments.

In the end, with the Supreme Court ruling coming out today, even if you purchase a house with tenants in the future, it seems that there will be no problem with the new landlord's actual residence until two months before the expiration of the contract.

I directly asked the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs today, and it said that it was reviewing whether to revise the guidelines according to the Supreme Court ruling.] 

[Reporter Park Chan-geun: In the meantime, not a few tenants have thought that if the existing landlord exercises the right to renew the contract, even if the landlord changes, the contract can be extended for another two years.

However, according to this Supreme Court ruling, it has become a situation where it is necessary to check whether the new landlord actually resides.

However, since the Supreme Court clearly states that the period during which the new landlord can reject the renewal request is between 6 months and 2 months before the expiration of the existing contract, if the new landlord does not express his/her intention to live in the landlord until 2 months before the expiration of the existing contract, the tenant may renew the contract as it is. It can be extended.]