The landlord who broke the promise of the actual residence and sold the house… Court "must pay damages"

The court judged that if he sold the house after sending the tenant out saying he would come in and live, he was liable for damages under civil law.

The Seoul Central District Court recently ruled in favor of some of the plaintiffs in a lawsuit for damages filed by tenant A and his mother against landlord B.

The court set the amount of damages at 20 million won, taking into consideration the additional monthly rent of 1.5 million won that Mr. A and his mother had to pay while renting another house.

In addition, it was decided that Mr. B should pay Mr. A a total of 28.61 million won, including moving expenses and brokerage fees.

In December 2019, Mr. A signed a lease contract with Mr. B for an apartment in Seocho-gu, Seoul, with a deposit of 1.24 billion won and a two-year residence condition.

As the contract expiration date approached, Mr. A requested a renewal of the contract in October 2021, but Mr. B refused to renew, saying that he would come in and live.

Under the Housing Lease Protection Act, the lessee has the right to request renewal of the contract, but this cannot be exercised if the landlord actually resides there.

Mr. A and his mother eventually found a new house with more expensive conditions, but filed a lawsuit against the landlord when it was revealed that the landlord sold the apartment for 3.67 billion won without actually living in it.

The court ruled in favor of the tenant, saying, "The act of the defendant (Mr. B) violated the Housing Lease Protection Act and refused to renew the lease contract without justifiable grounds, thereby violating the right to apply for contract renewal."

The Housing Lease Protection Act imposes liability for damages when a landlord hires a new tenant after letting the tenant go, saying 'I will live in it'.

Mr. B argued that for this reason, the liability for compensation was not established.

However, the court judged that the liability for damages was recognized in this case as well.

As long as the Housing Lease Protection Act stipulates that 'the lessor cannot refuse to renew the contract without justifiable grounds if the lessee requests it', the court considers Mr. B's act of refusing to renew the tenant's contract for a reason not stipulated by the law to be an illegal act under the civil law. I decided it could.