The court judged that if the landlord sold the house after sending the tenant out saying that he would come in and live, he was liable for damages under civil law.
Seoul Central District Court Civil 42 Single Chief Judge Jeong Jin-won ruled that the plaintiff (tenant A's mother) partially prevailed in the lawsuit for damages filed by tenant A and his mother against landlord B.
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 asked for a renewal of the contract, but Mr. B refused to renew the contract, saying that he would come in and live there himself.
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.
As a result, Mr. A’s mother moved to another apartment with a more expensive condition of 1.3 billion won in deposit and 1.5 million won in monthly rent.
We also paid brokerage fees of 5.8 million won and moving expenses of 2.81 million won.
However, as it was revealed that the landlord had sold the apartment for 3.67 billion won without actually living in it, Mr. A's mother filed a lawsuit against the landlord.
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 court set the amount of damages at 20 million won, taking into account the additional monthly rent of 1.5 million won that Mr. A and his mother had to pay while renting another house. ordered the party to pay.
The Housing Lease Protection Act stipulates that a landlord is liable for damages if he hires a new tenant after letting the tenant go, saying 'I will live in it'.
Although there is no specific compensation clause for the case of selling, 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 from the lessee without justifiable grounds', the act of the landlord B who refused to renew the tenant's contract for reasons not specified by the law can be regarded as an illegal act under the civil law. It is the purpose of the judgment.