임대인의 주택 실거주를 사유로 한 갱신거절에 관한 법리형성 제안 - 주택임대차보호법 제6조의3 제1항 제8호에 대한 문제 -

노순범 연세법학회(구 연세법학연구회) 2022 연세법학 Vol.40 No.-

With the amendment of the Housing Lease Protection Act in July 2020, the tenant is given the right to request a renewal and the landlord is provided with a mechanism to reject it. In some cases, it was difficult to avoid sharp conflicts of opinion in various interpretations of the law as it could not be resolved with the word of the Housing Lease Protection Act alone. Although it has been more than two years since the law was revised, this phenomenon continues, and it seems that several lawsuits related to the Housing Lease Protection Act are ongoing in the court, hoping for a final decision from the judiciary. In particular, in accordance with Article 6-3 (1) 8 of the Housing Lease Protection Act, we proposed the formation of legal principles focusing on the case where the landlord refuses to renew the contract due to a false claim of real residence. However, prior to this, major cases of the court's formation of legal principles for deficiencies in the Housing Lease Protection Act (① judgment on the effect of alien registration, etc. and the effect of family resident registration, ② flexible attitude about whether it is a residential building or not, ③ setting standards for resolution of repair mandatory disputes). In order to form a new legal principle through this, all matters such as ① the purpose of the Housing Lease Protection Act, ② the ideology and spirit of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea, ③ a harmonious interpretation with other laws, ④ business practices, ⑤ an appropriate legal relationship with the lessor, etc. A conclusion was drawn that should be considered. Based on this, the following two legal principles were proposed. In principle, if the landlord refuses to renew the contract based on Article 6-3 (1) 8 of the Housing Lease Protection Act after the tenant has exercised his right to request for renewal, the contract renewal will not be established. However, considering the contractual relationship at the time of refusal of renewal and various circumstances centered on the contractual relationship, such as expression and actions of both parties, if it is clearly suspected that the landlord's claim of real residence is false, the renewal refusal will not be accepted. The basis of this legal principle is: ① the purpose of the Housing Lease Protection Act and the amended Act, ② to guarantee the validity of the right to request renewal (preventing the abuse of refusal to renew), and ③ the method of objectively confirming the actual residence is limited (in fact, there is only a system for viewing rental information), ④ The expression “existence of justifiable cause” in Article 6-3 (1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act[in this regard, it is necessary to also review Article 23 (2) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea], ⑤ Lack of objection right of the tenant, ⑥ the necessity of the legal principle to estimate an inward intention from Specific circumstances. If the landlord's refusal to renew under Article 6-3 (1) 8 of the Housing Lease Protection Act is found to be false after examining various circumstances, it should be considered that the existing lease has been renewed. However, if the tenant claims compensation for damages against the landlord based on Article 6-3 (5) of the Act, or if the landlord concludes a lease contract with a new tenant who is a third party in good faith, the existing lease contract relationship will no longer exist. Only the issue of compensation for damages remains between the landlord and the tenant. The basis of this legal principle is that ① the landlord's right to request renewal is the right to form, but the landlord's false claim of real residence does not fall under the grounds for rejection under Article 6-3 (1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act. ② According to the concept of the Civil law damage, it is reasonable to interpret the damage in Article 6-3 (5) of the Housing Lease Protection Act as damage tha... 2020년 7월 주택임대차보호법의 개정으로 임차인에게는 갱신요구권이 주어짐과 동시에 임대인에게는 이를 거절할 수 있는 장치가 마련됨으로써 양자 사이에 임대차계약의 갱신 여부를 둘러싼 다양한 갈등 양상이 목격되었고, 그 갈등 과정에서 일부 사례는 주택임대차보호법의 문언만으로는 해결할 수 없어 여러 해석상의 첨예한 의견 대립을 피하기 어려웠다. 동 법이 개정된 지 2년여가 도과되었음에도 이런 현상은 지속되고 있고, 결국 사법부에서 최종 결론이 내려지길 기대하는 것이 당연하다는 듯이 법원에 관련된 여러 소송이 진행되거나 접수 중인 것으로 보인다. 특히 임대인이 주택임대차보호법 제6조의3 제1항 제8호를 근거로 허위 실거주 주장을 함으로써 계약의 갱신을 거절하는 사안을 중심으로 일정한 법리들을 제안해 보았는데, 그 제안에 앞서 주택임대차보호법상 미흡한 부분에 대한 기존 법원의 주요 법리형성 사례들(㉠ 외국인등록 등의 효과 및 가족의 주민등록의 효과에 대한 판결, ㉡ 주거용 건물에 해당되는지 여부에 대한 유연한 태도, ㉢ 수선의무와 관련된 분쟁해결 기준에 대한 정리)을 살펴보고, 이를 통해 새로운 법리를 형성하기 위해서는 ㉠ 주택임대차보호법의 목적과 취지, ㉡ 대한민국헌법의 이념과 정신, ㉢ 다른 법률과의 조화로운 해석, ㉣ 거래계의 실무, ㉤ 임대인과의 적절한 법률관계 등 제반사항들을 종합적으로 검토해야 한다는 결론을 도출하였다. 이를 전제로 다음과 같은 두 가지 법리의 형성을 제안해보았다. ① 임차인이 갱신요구권을 행사한 후 임대인이 법 제6조의3 제1항 제8호에 따라 계약갱신을 거절한 경우 원칙적으로 계약갱신이 성립되지 않으나, 갱신거절 당시의 계약관계와 양당사자의 의사표현 및 행위 등 계약관계를 중심으로 한 여러 주변의 정황 등 제반사정들을 종합적으로 고려하여 보았을 때 임대인 본인 등의 실거주 주장이 허위임이 명백히 의심되는 경우라면 갱신거절은 인정되지 않는다고 보아야 한다. 이 법리의 논거로 ㉠ 주택임대차보호법과 개정법의 취지, ㉡ 갱신요구권의 실효성 담보(갱신거절 남용 방지), ㉢ 실거주 여부를 객관적으로 확인하는 방법의 한계(사실상 임대차정보 열람제도만 존재), ㉣ 법 제6조의3 제1항의 “정당한 사유의 존재” 기재 부분(이와 관련하여 대한민국헌법 제23조 제2항도 고려 필요), ㉤ 임대인의 갱신거절에 대한 임차인의 이의제기 권리 부존재, ㉥ 묵시적 갱신 규정과 같이 특정 사정으로부터 의사를 추단하는 법리 형성의 필요성 등을 제시하였다. ② 주택임대차보호법 제6조의3 제1항 제8호에 따른 임대인의 갱신거절이 여러 사정에 미루어 살펴본 결과, 허위인 것으로 드러난 경우에는 기존 임대차계약이 갱신된 것으로 보아야 한다. 다만, 임차인이 법 제6조의3 제5항에 따라 임대인을 상대로 손해배상을 청구하거나 임대인이 선의의 제3자인 새로운 임차인과 별도의 임대차 계약을 체결하였다면 기존 임대차계약 관계는 더 이상 존속되지 아니하고 임대인과 임차인 사이의 손해배상 문제만이 남게 된다. 이 법리의 논거로 ㉠ 임차인의 갱신요구권은 일종의 형성권인데, 임대인의 허위 실거주 주장은 법 제6조의3 제1항 각호의 사유에 해당하지 않는다는 점이 명백하므로 당연히 형성권의 행사는 유효하여 임대차계약 갱신이 인정된다는 점, ㉡ 법 제6조의3 제5항에서 말하는 손해는 기본적으로 “갱 ...

주택임대차보호법·상가건물임대차보호법상 임차인 보호를 위한 공시방법에 관한 소고

이근영,김상진 한국토지법학회 2015 土地法學 Vol.31 No.1

The Housing Lease Protection Act and the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act allow the government to involve in legal disputes between a landlord and a tenant to rectify the liberty of contrast, a dominant principle of civil law, acting as a social safety net to protect the tenant of a house or a commercial building, who are often at a disadvantage both socially and economically. That is, as a way to strengthen the protection, given the public announcement of the lease contract is in compliance with the relevant law, the tenant is given the opposing power against the third party and the right to receive the prior payment of his or her security deposit (paragraph 1 of Article 3 of the Housing Lease Protection Act and paragraph 1 of Article 3 of the Commercial Building Lease Protection). If the lease contract contains the definite date, the amount of money converted from the rented house (including the land) or the rented building (including other properties owned by the landlord) first goes to the tenant (paragraph 2 of Article 3 of the Housing Lease Protection Act and paragraph 2 of Article 5 of the Commercial Building Lease Protection). As for the methods of public announcement, the transfer of property and resident registration are required by the Housing Lease Protection Act while the property transfer and business registration are demanded by the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act. However, as the definite date is solely intended to prevent the collusion between the landlord and tenant from affecting the right of the third party, the date is irrelevant to the public announcement. The current study focuses on the possibility that the tenant can have all three conditions including the opposing power, the preferential right to the deposit for lease and the prior right to the small amount of a lease deposit given the announcement is property made. The focus is also on other issues arising from a tenant who meets the requirements for the public announcement but can’t receive any protection. In this study, tenants who fall into this category are termed as an ‘erroneously accepted tenant’, which includes the following cases: a tenant who registers his or her resident but can’t receive protection under any Lease Protection Acts, when the resident is registered only by an indirect resident, when the resident registration is cancelled regardless of the willingness of the tenant, a small tenant whose security deposit is less than a specific sum of money to lease housing, who serves as the landlord’s creditor to collect the deposit, a small tenant who has the creation of mortgage and meets the requirements for the public announcement after a building is newly built, and a landlord who is entitled to the preferential payment right for the second auction. With regard to those issues, this study compares judicial precedents and academic theory, and suggests personal opinions and thoughts. 주택임대차보호법과 상가임대차보호법은 국가가 임대인과 임차인 사이의 사적인 법률관계에 개입하여 민법의 대원칙인 계약자유의 원칙을 수정하고, 경제적·사회적으로 열악한 지위에 있는 주택 또는 상가건물의 임차인을 보호하기 위한 사회보장적 성격을 지닌다. 즉 임차인의 지위 강화의 견지에서 일정한 공시방법을 갖춘 경우에 제3자에 대한 대항력과 소액임차금의 최우선변제권을 부여하고(주임법 제3조 제1항, 상임법 제3조 제1항), 여기에 임대차계약서에 확정일자까지 갖춘 경우에는 경매 또는 공매절차에서 임차주택(대지를 포함한다) 또는 임차건물(임대인 소유의 건물을 포함한다)의 환가대금에서 우선하여 보증금을 변제받을 권리를 보장하고 있다(주임법 제3조의 2 제2항, 상임법 제5조 제2항). 주임법은 공시방법으로 주택의 인도(점유)와 주민등록을, 상임법은 공시방법을 상가건물의 인도와 사업자등록을 들고 있는데, 그 중 주민등록과 사업자등록은 공시방법으로 문제점이 많아서 많은 논의가 있고 그래서 공시방법인가 여부가 문제되고 있다. 그러나 주민등록은, 등기와는 달리, 비용이 소요되지 않고, 그 절차도 간단하다는 점과 임대차관계에서 대항력의 취득여부와 그 취득시기를 명확하게 하는 장점이 있고, 주임법 제3조 제1항에서 주민등록법상의 전입신고(주민등록)와 상임법 제3조 제1항에서 세법상의 사업자등록을, 주택 또는 상가건물의 인도(점유)와 함께, 임차인의 대항력 취득요건으로 규정하고 있고 있으므로 이것이 공시방법으로 기능한다는 점은 부정할 수는 없다고 본다. 다만 주임법 제3조 제1항과 상임법 제3조 제1항은 그 법문상 대항력의 취득요건으로만 규정할 뿐, 그 존속요건으로 규정하고 있지 않다는 점을 주의하여야 한다. 따라서 주민등록과 사업자등록은 공시방법으로 대항력 등의 취득요건이지만 존속요건은 아니라고 보아야 할 것이다. 이러한 공시방법 구비한 임차권의 효력으로 임차인이 갖게 되는 대항력, 우선변제권(확정일자도 구비시), 소액보증금의 최우선변제권의 행사상의 문제점을 검토하면서, 특히 연속된 경매에서 제2경매에서도 임차인이 잔존 보증금에 대하여 우선변제권을 주장할 수 있는지에 대하여도 검토하였다. 주임법 제3조의 5 단서와 상임법 제8조 단서는 보증금이 모두 변제되지 아니한, 대항력이 있는 임차권은 소멸하지 않는다고 명정하고 있다는 점을 고려하여 임대차가 종료하지만 보증금을 반환받을 때까지 법정임대차관계가 존속하는 것으로 의제한다고 하는 판례의 해석론이 아닌, 임차인의 대항력은 물론 잔존보증금에 대한 우선변제권도 역시 존속하므로 제2경매에서 우선변제권을 행사할 수 있다고 해석하여야 하며, 이러한 해석론은 소액임차인의 최우선변권에도 동일하게 적용된다고 본다. 그리고 외형상 공시방법을 구비하였지만, 판례로 인하여 그 보호에서 제외되는 임차인의 유형들을 판례를 중심으로 정리하였다.

새로운 임대인의 실거주를 이유로 한 갱신거절권 (수원지방법원 2022. 4. 22. 선고 2021나89299 항소심 판결)

이오현,김대희 경희대학교 법학연구소 2022 경희법학 Vol.57 No.4

As housing costs rise and the housing market becomes unstable, there is an accelerated transition from Chonse to monthly rent, causing housing instability and increasing the burden of housing costs on lessees. By ensuring the lessee's right to renew the lease, the lease guarantee period has been increased from two years to four years. Increases in rent or security deposits upon contract renewal are limited to 1/20 of the agreed amount. Consequently, the lessor has a great deal of complaints. In the lessee's situation, Chonse is hard to find, and the Chonse price increases sharply. The lessor also finds it difficult to raise the lease fee. Moreover, even after the lessor purchases the house, the lessor has difficulty moving in due to the lessee's application for contract renewal. The lessor also suffers greatly. The timely sale of a home as needed, the completion of residence requirements that are exempt from transfer taxes, and the retroactive application of two rental laws (the 「Housing Lease Protection Act」 and Real Estate Transaction Reporting Act). Therefore, the lessor's property rights are being violated. Both parties express concern about tax burden due to actual transaction report of Chonse and monthly fee. It may not be possible for the assignee to reside in their newly acquired home if the lessee residing there applies to renew their lease to the lessor (a seller) prior to registration of ownership transfer. In accordance with current law, the transfer of ownership takes effect only after registration, and the assignee inherits the status of the lessor. Due to this, the assignee of the leased house had the right to refuse contract renewals. The lessor's right to refuse renewal does not expire, even if ownership of the leased object changes after the application right to renewal is exercised. The lessor can also refuse to renew the lease. Consequently, the lessor is legally and effectively entitled to refuse renewal within the period stipulated by law. The lessor can also exercise the renewal refusal right of the previous lessor. The lease contract will thus be terminated in the non-renewal state during the original contract expiry period. The amended 「Housing Lease Protection Act」 led to many disputes over the rights of lessees to renew their leases. A typical situation is when a lessee exercises their right to renew their lease where the new lessor acquires ownership of the house from the previous lessor, and on the basis of the actual residence, the new lessor rejects the lessee's renewal application. Although the purpose of the amendment of the 「Housing Lease Protection Act」 was to protect the lessee, the only effect was to increase the pain of the lessee as the Chonse price increased at once for four years. The amended 「Housing Lease Protection Act」 has only been enacted recently, and a number of lower court decisions have been issued, but This was first Supreme Court ruling. If there is a legitimate reason under the「Housing Lease Protection Act」After exercising the Application right of contract renewal, within the renewal refusal period of the old lessor the transferee who has succeeded to the leasehold status must be able to exercise the right of refusal of contract renewal for the purpose of Actually Reside. A full review of the 「Housing Lease Protection Act」 is also necessary in the future, as well as a discussion about the need for a 「Housing Lease Protection Act」.

사례연구 : 임대차보증금반환채권의 가압류와임차주택의 양도 -대법원 2013. 1. 17. 선고, 2011다49523 전원합의체 판결을 중심으로-

김현선 ( Hyeon Son Kim ) 건국대학교 법학연구소 2014 一鑑法學 Vol.0 No.28

Article 3, section 4 of the Housing Lease Protection Act provides that “the provisions of Articles 575(1) and (3) and 578 of the Civil Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to cases where a house, an object of the lease under this Act, is the object of a sale or public auction.” The majority opinion and court judgment consider it as a reasonable succession provision under the law. Assignee being succeeded landlord’s entire rights and obligation by the lease contract with combined ownership of subjected house when leased house assigned. In this result, the assignee shall succeed without charge the refund claim of lease security deposit and assignor withdraw the relationship of lease contract and being discharged the obligation of refund claim of lease security deposit. In case, however, the leased house assigned with the refund claim of lease security deposit is attached even tenant’s claim which secured opposing power that is provided by the Housing Lease Protection Act, the issue is whether assignee succeeded third party debtors status in the attachment and whether creditor of the attachment can claim the effectiveness of attachment against assignee. If assignee succeed third party creditor of claim attachment position, she may unexpectedly get damage of double payment of lease security deposit means that assignee being repaid lease security deposit that already refunded to tenant to attachment creditor. On the other hand, assignee did not succeeded third party creditor status of claim attachment, attachment creditor may get disadvantage that she is being lost her rights of preferential payment from the proceeds for house in the auction procedure in the future. In case of the lease security deposit refunded to tenant without refund claim of lease security deposit is being attached, the assignee also have unknown these fact, according to the Housing Lease Protection Act, the owner of the leased house were changed, attachment creditor also regarded as unknown that she believe that the execution of the refund claim of lease security deposit were secured. Because the subject court judgment is related to the question of which opinion is more adequate to the jurisprudence with the formal conflicts of interest, we should carefully consider the purpose of Housing Lease Protection Act, legislative intent of the Act of article 3 section 4, characteristic of succession of subjects and interprets individually and concretely. Court holding accepts succession affirmative theory and stand that the effectiveness of attachment gave generic effect to the assignee who succeeded landlord’s status by the special article 3 section 4 of the Housing Lease Protection Act. By sentencing the exception of general effectiveness of claim attachment, court award possibility of protection for attachment creditor who attaching refund claim of lease security deposit that subject to the Housing Lease Protection Act.

상가건물임대차보호법상 임차인의 지위

김대규(Kim, Dae-Kyu) 원광대학교 법학연구소 2009 圓光法學 Vol.25 No.3

The three basic necessities for human are clothing, food, and shelter. The commercial building and housing is said to be the most fundamental and intrinsic factor serving as the foundation for establishing a human social living. This thesis is a study of the legal settlement to make an approach for the commercial building lease protection act and the housing lease protection law system. The housing lease protection act was established in March 1981. It was enacted in the form of a special law to guarantee the stability of residential life, especially for those homeless citizens who can't afford to buy their own house. The commercial building lease protection act was established in December 29, 2001, in order to stabilize citizens' lives by protecting lessees. The homeless must lease other's house to and commercial building for their steady house life and business. The commercial building lease protection act shall apply for business purposes. This acts allows a lessee who have the power of antagonism when he occupy the house and building. I think that a lessee should be allowed opposing power as soon as he takes possession of it. In the application this law not only those house for dwelling but also those commercial store possessed by the destitution person should be included as the object of protection. The homeless must lease a house to protect themselves and their families day and night. Busnessmen lease a commercial building for them to provide good life for their family. The housing and commercial lease protection act has problems to be regulated. The commercial building lease protection act limits the sphere of application the amount of the deposit money. For example, in Jeon Ju city, the limit is 150,000,000 won and Seoul city, the limit is 260,000,000 won. So I hope that this study will resolve the dispute between the contracting parties. And that this study may protect their rights to lease.

임대주택 양수인에 대한 임대차보증금반환채권의 가압류의 효력 - 대법원 2013. 1. 17. 선고 2011다49523 전원합의체 판결 -

조준현 원광대학교 법학연구소 2014 圓光法學 Vol.30 No.4

The Article 3 Section 4 of the Housing Lease Protection Act and the Article 3 Section 2 of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act stipulate that the transferee of leased housing or commercial building is deemed to have succeeded the status of the lessor. In this regard, in the case where the leased housing or commercial building is transferred after the provisional seizure of the lessee’s lease deposit return bond, whether the transferee succeeds not only to the status of the lessor on the substantive law but also to the status of the tertiary debtor of provisional bond seizure on the execution law becomes problematic. To this, the majority ruling of the Supreme Court plenary trial 2013.1.17.sentence 2011C49523 rendered that in the case where the leased housing had been transferred in the state of provisional seizure of lease deposit return bond pursuant to the Housing Lease Protection Act, due to the special stipulation of the Article 3 Section 4 of the Housing Lease Protection Act, the transferee of the leased housing succeeded not only to the status of lessor on the Housing Lease Protection Act but also to the status of tertiary debtor in the provisional bond seizure, and the provisional seizer could claim the effect of the provisional seizure only against the transferee. On the contrary, the minority opinion of the said trial stated that in this case because the transferee did not succeed to the status of the tertiary debtor in the provisional bond seizure, the effect of the provisional seizure did not bind the transferee; furthermore, because the transfer of the leased housing exempted the transferee of the lease deposit return bond, the provisional seizure on the transferor also dissolves in effect. However, even if the tertiary debtor changes after the provisional bond seizure goes into effect, as long as the status of the prior tertiary debtor succeeds comprehensively – e.g., inheritance, merger and acquisition – to sustain the effect of preservation of the provisional seizure, the effect of the provisional seizure extends to the comprehensive successor (heir, succeeding or new company after the merger and acquisition). The transferee’s succession to the status of the lessor pursuant to the Article 3 Section 4 of the Housing Lease Protection Act, in the limited scope of lessor’s rights and obligations with regard to the leased housing, is a comprehensive succession in light of point that the legal effect takes place similar to the case of partition merger which is a comprehensive succession. Since the status of the tertiary debtor who is issued an injunction of payment prohibition to the lease deposit return bond presupposes the lessor who bears the lease deposit return bond, the status of the lessor who bears the lease deposit bond on substantive law cannot be separated from the status of the tertiary debtor in the provisionary seizure of lease deposit return bond on execution law. Therefore, the transferee of the leased housing also succeeds to the status of the tertiary debtor in the provisionary seizure of lease deposit return bond, and the provisional seizer can claim the effect of the provisional seizure only against the transferee of the leased housing. Such interpretation befits the legislative purpose of the Housing Lease Protection Act which intends to protect the lessee and the legal system of the execution law on the effect of provisional seizure.

헌법상 주택임대차보호법에 관한 입법 과제

여경수 ( Yeo Gyeong-su ) 건국대학교 법학연구소 2015 일감부동산법학 Vol.11 No.-

주택임대차보호법은 1981년 주택임차인을 보호하기 위해서 제정되었다. 주택임대차보호법의 목적은 주거용 건물의 임대차에 관하여 민법에 대한 특례를 규정함으로써 국민의 주거생활의 안정을 보장함을 목적으로 제정된 것이다. 주택임대차보호법에서는 임차인의 권리보호의 방법으로 대항력, 보증금의 회수, 임차권등기명령, 임대차기간, 계약의 갱신, 차임과 같은 증감청구권, 보증금 중 일정액의 보호와 같은 여러 가지 제도를 자세하게 규정하고 있다. 제19대 국회 개원이후 국회에서는 주택임차인에 대한 권리보장 차원에서 주택임대차보호법의 개정을 위한 법안 발의가 이루어졌다. 대표적으로는 임차인의 계약갱신청구권 신설, 주택임대차분쟁조정위원회 신설, ③ 임차보증금 반환의무 지급보증제도를 활성화, ④ 전월세값 공시를 통한 합리적인 임대차제도 구축과 같은 내용을 담고 있다. 본 논문에서는 주택임대차보호법의 헌법적 근거와 주요 내용을 다룬다. 주택임대차보호법의 제정취지와 주택 임차인에게 보증금의 우선변제권, 일정한 요건하에 소액임차인에게 부여된 최우선변제권, 임차권등기명령제도를 살펴본다. 그리고 현재 국회에 계류 중인 아래와 같은 주택임대차보호법의 개정사안을 다루고자한다. 첫째, 임차인의 계약갱신청구권 신설(안)을 다룬다. 둘째, 주택임대차분쟁조정위원회 신설(안) 필요성에 관한 사항을 다룬다. 셋째, 임차보증금 반환의무 지급보증제도를 활성화를 다룬다. Housing Lease Protection Act was first established in 1981 to protect tenants of an economically weak party, and until recently, some revisions have been made on several occasions. The purpose of Housing Lease Protection Act is to secure stability in the residential life of national citizens, by providing for special cases to the Civil Act, with respect to the lease of buildings for residence. According to the Housing Lease Protection Act of Korea, the law is designed to protect the tenant first. With respect to a lease, of which the term is not fixed, or is fixed for less than two years, the term of such lease shall be deemed to be two years. The Housing Lease Protection Act must be immediately revised to enhance residential stability of ordinary citizens and to prevent and alleviate long-term lease difficulties and the rapid increase of long-term lease fees. The revisions to be made in the Housing Lease Protection Act is, first, upon establishing cause, tenants should be able to lease for a maximum of four years by exercising their renewal claim once within the two year limit, after the termination of the two year limit provided by the Housing Lease Protection Act. Secondly, the introduction of the Alternatives for Managing Housing Rent Committee. Thirdly, the introduction of the system guaranteeing the return of lease deposits is required. That is that the introduction of this system is necessary to guarantee the right of residential mobility of lessees.

주택임대차보호법상 임차권과 보증금반환채권의 양도 및 우선변제력

이성진 한국토지법학회 2016 土地法學 Vol.32 No.1

The Housing Lease Protection Act 3-2 Article (2) Any lessee who has met the requirements for opposing power prescribed in Article 3 (1), (2), or (3), and obtained the fixed date on the lease contract document (referring to lease contract documents between a corporation and a lessor in cases falling under Article 3 (2) and (3)), shall be entitled to receive the repayment of the deposit from the converted price of the leased house (including the site thereof), in preference to any junior obligors and other creditors, at the time of an auction conducted under the Civil Execution Act and a public sale under the National Tax Collection Act. Recently the Supreme Court did state that if a tenant transfers the right of lease and the right to request of deposit, a transferee can exercise the right to preferential payment under the given requirements. But the Supreme Court did state that in case a tenant transfers only the right to request of deposit during a period of lease separately, a transferee can’t exercise the right to preferential payment. If a tenant transfers only the right to request of deposit during a period of lease separately, it is right that the right to preferential payment must be accepted. There wasn’t any provide on whether or not recognized of the right to preferential payment related to transfer and security of the right to request of deposit in The Housing Lease Protection Act. But if some financial institutions receive the right to request of deposit, the right to preferential payment can be accepted by recently revised The Housing Lease Protection Act. The Housing Lease Protection Act 3-2 (7) Where any of the following financial institutions, etc. takes over by contract the claim for repayment of deposit of a lessee who has acquired the preferential repayment right pursuant to paragraph (2), Article 3-3 (5), or 3-4 (1), it shall succeed the preferential repayment right within the extent of the amount he/she has taken over. This article restricts scope of the transferee that can be accepted right to preferential payment. Namely this article give preference to some financial institutions without reasonable causes. Therefore the Housing Lease Protection Act 3-2 (7) should be amended. 대법원 판례는 해석상 임차권과 보증금반환채권이 함께 양도된 경우, 일정한 요건 하에서 양수인은 우선변제권을 행사할 수 있다고 한다. 그러나 대법원 판례는 임대차 존속기간 중에 보증금반환채권만이 분리 양도된 경우, 양수인은 우선변제권을 행사할 수 없다고 한다. 그래서 후자의 경우, 양수인의 우선변제권이 인정되지 않아서 보증금반환채권의 양도 또는 담보가치는 약화될 수밖에 없고, 이는 보증금반환채권의 저평가나 높은 금리의 담보로 이어질 수밖에 없는 문제점이 있다. 주임법은 보증금반환채권의 양도 또는 담보와 관련된 우선변제력 인정에 관하여 아무런 규정을 두지 않고 있었다. 그러나 최근에 개정된 주임법에 일부 금융기관 등이 보증금반환채권을 양수한 경우, 우선변제력을 인정할 수 있다는 규정이 신설되었다. 이 규정의 신설로 인하여 위의 문제점이 어느 정도 해결될 수 있을 것이라고 생각되지만, 이 규정과 관련하여 여전히 또 다른 문제점들이 존재하고 있다. 보증금반환채권만이 분리 양도된 경우, 양수인의 우선변제력을 인정하지 않는 대법원 판례는 부당할 뿐만 아니라, 이 경우 우선변제력을 인정받을 수 있는 양수인의 범위를 일부의 금융기관 등으로 제한하고 있는 주임법 제3조의2 제7항은 개정되어야 할 것이다.

개정 주택임대차보호법상 갱신요구권에 관한 몇 가지 쟁점

추선희,김제완 이화여자대학교 법학연구소 2020 法學論集 Vol.25 No.1

Under the existing Housing Lease Protection Act, the social problems of housing costs have not been solved, such as housing instability caused by the short-term lease and the reduction of households' disposable income due to frequent rent price hikes. Accordingly, the Housing Lease Protection Act was revised, and the above revised Act introduced the upper limit on the previous month's tax, which limits the tenant's right to renewal lease and the ratio of claims for an increase in rent or deposit when renewing a lease contract. However, in the interpretation and application of contract renewal requests under the revised Housing Lease Protection Act, whether the application of Article 2 of the Schedule violates the provision of retroactive legislation; The meaning of 'lending in existence' as applicable; the effect of the renter's refusal to renew prior to the enforcement of the Act; Does the interpretation and application of the reasons for refusal to renew the term 'when the lessee actually resides in the intended house include 'the spouse's lineal ascendant'; How does it affect the tenant's right to request renewal if the tenant transfers the intended house to a third party during the lease's existence; In the event that the lessee has already entered into a renewal contract with the current tenant before the contract expires, the issue may still be whether the lessee exercises the right to renew the contract based on the implementation of the revised law, nullifies the increase in excess of 5%, or requests the return of the part of the contract. In order to enhance the effectiveness of the right to renewal lease and the upper limit on monthly rent, and to contribute more to the stabilization of national housing, the application and interpretation of the above revised Housing Lease Protection Act should be discussed. First of all, it would be desirable to expand the right to renewal lease. The reason for the renter's legitimate refusal to exercise the right to renewal lease and the legal damages system should be continuously improved. The right to renewal lease shall be applied in common nationwide, but regional characteristics shall be taken into account for the upper limit of rent increase claim. It will be said that the government needs to revitalize the lease dispute settlement system, and that it needs to be supplemented by drawing up measures to enhance its effectiveness, such as introducing mediation totalitarianism. 우리나라 기존 주택임대차보호법으로는 임대차의 단기화로 인한 주거 불안정, 빈번한 차임 증가로 인한 가계의 가처분 소득 감소 등 주거비 부담의 사회적 문제를 해결하는 데 한계가 있었다. 이에 따라, 2020. 7. 31. 주택임대차보호법이 개정되어 위개정법에서는 임차인의 계약갱신요구권 보장과 임대차계약 갱신 시 차임이나 보증금의 증액청구 비율을 제한하는 내용의 전월세 상한제가 도입되었다. 그러나 개정된 주택임대차보호법에 따른 계약갱신요구권의 해석과 적용에 있어서, ① 부칙 제2조의 적용례가 소급입법금지원칙에 위반되는지, ② 적용대상으로서 ‘존속중인 임대차’의 의미와 법시행 전에 이루어진 임대인의 갱신거절의 효력이 어떠한지, ③ ‘임대인(임대인의 직계존속·직계비속을 포함한다)이 목적 주택에 실제 거주하려는경우’의 갱신거절 사유를 해석·적용함에 있어서 ‘배우자의 직계존비속’이 포함되는지, ‘실제 거주’에 임대인이 실제 거주하지 않고 상당 기간 비워두는 것도 포함하는지, ④ 임대차 존속 중에 임대인이 목적 주택을 제3자에게 양도한 경우 임차인의 갱신요구권에 어떠한 영향을 미치는지, ⑤ 임대인이 계약만료를 앞두고 현 임차인과 이미 5% 의 차임 증액 상한률을 초과하여 갱신계약을 체결하여 놓은 상태에서 개정법이 시행된 경우, 임차인이 개정법 시행을 근거로 갱신요구권을 행사하거나 5%를 초과하여인상한 부분을 무효로 보아 기지급한 부분의 반환을 청구할 수 있는지 등이 여전히문제 될 수 있다. 따라서 위와 같은 개정 주택임대차보호법의 적용과 해석에 대한 논의가 이루어져야 할 것이다. 이와 더불어 계약갱신요구권과 전월세 상한제의 실효성을 높이고 국민의 주거 안정에 보다 기여할 수 있도록 하기 위하여는, ① 우선 주택임대차에 있어서 갱신요구권을 확대하는 것이 바람직할 것으로 보이고, ② 갱신요구권 행사에 대한 임대인의정당한 거절사유와 법정 손해배상제도를 함께 지속적으로 개선하여야 할 것이며, ③ 갱신요구권을 전국적으로 공통으로 적용하되 차임 증액청구 상한률에 대하여는 지역별 특성을 고려하여야 할 것이고, ④ 임대차 분쟁 조정제도의 활성화가 필요하고 이를 위해 조정전치주의를 도입하는 등 실효성을 높일 방안을 마련하는 등의 보완을 할필요가 있다고 할 것이다.

개정 주택임대차보호법상 계약 갱신청구권의 문제점과 개선방안

한수현,신국미 한국지적학회 2022 한국지적학회지 Vol.38 No.2

Housing is one of the basic goods for living, and the stability of residence in housing is closely related to the stability of the whole life. The method of housing occupancy can be largely divided into own occupancy by self-ownership and lease that allows others to rent and live, and the part of the right to claim contract renewal, which is the purpose of this study, is one of the parts related to lease. The Housing Lease Protection Act enacted in 1981 has been implemented as a special provision for the provisions of the Civil Act to prevent disputes between landlords and tenants and to stabilize housing for the people. The Housing Lease Protection Act has been implemented as a stronger special law than the Civil Act as a policy to protect relatively weak tenants, but the imbalance between landlords and tenants is difficult to resolve, and discussions to strengthen tenants' protection and rights have been raised several times in the 19th National Assembly. The contents of the revised Housing Lease Protection Act include the upper limit of the monthly rent, the right to claim contract renewal, and the monthly rent reporting system, and a dispute settlement committee was established to alleviate disputes under the revised Housing Lease Protection Act. This study analyzes disputes caused by the contract renewal claims right system, analyzes the excessive property rights infringement of landlords due to the contract renewal claims right using case studies, and analyzes the damage caused to tenants in the real estate market regardless of the purpose of protecting tenants, accordingly, we would like to suggest directions for improvement. 주택은 생활을 영위하기 위한 기본적인 재화중의 하나로서, 주거에 대한 거주의 안정은 생활 전체의 안정과 밀접한 관계가 있다. 주택 점유의 방법으로는 크게 자가 소유에 의한 자가 점유와 타인에게 임차하여 거주하게 하는 임대로 나눌 수 있으며 본 연구의 목적인 계약갱신 청구권에 대한 부분은 임대에 관련된 부분 중 하나이다. 1981년 제정된 주택임대차보호법은 임대인과 임차인간의 분쟁을 막고 국민 주거 안정을 위하여 민법 규정에 대한 특례규정으로 시행되어왔다. 주택임대차보호법은 임대인에 비하여 상대적으로 약자인 임차인을 보호하기 위한 정책으로 민법보다 강력한 특례법으로 시행되어 왔으나 임대인과 임차인간의 불균형이 해소되기는 어려운 부분이 존재하였으며, 그로 인해 임차인보호 및 권리를 강화하기 위한 논의는 꾸준히 제기되었고, 제19대 국회에서 여러 차례 발의되어 2020년 7월 주택임대차보호법이 개정되었다. 개정된 주택임대차보호법의 내용으로는 전월세 상한제, 계약갱신 청구권제, 전월세 신고제가 있으며, 분쟁조정위원회를 두어 개정 된 주택임대차보호법으로 인한 분쟁을 완화할 수 있게 하였다. 본 연구는 이 중 계약갱신청구권제로 인해 발생되는 분쟁을 분석하며, 계약갱신청구권으로 인한 임대인의 과도한 재산권 침해에 대한 부분이 발생될 수 있는 부분을 사례로 분석해보았고, 임차인을 보호하고자 한 취지와 무색하게 실제 부동산 시장에서 임차인들에게 발생되고 있는 피해를 분석해 봄으로써 법의 취지와 다른 부동산시장의 현상을 파악해보고, 이에 따라 개선방안을 제시하고자 한다.