A tenant who did not pay rent, saying he did not comply with his landlord obligations... “The building must be returned”

Tenant who was sued for building delivery claims “building owner failed to fulfill obligation to provide information”
Court ruled in favor of the building owner, saying, “The tenants must have fully inspected the building at the time of signing the contract.”

A tenant who had not paid rent for a long period of time lost a civil suit for forced eviction because the landlord did not fulfill its obligations.

The Changwon District Court cited the plaintiff's claim in a building delivery claim lawsuit filed by building owner A against commercial tenants B and C last October.

Mr. A signed a lease contract for a commercial building with Mr. B in June 2022. A month later, at Mr. B's request, the tenant's name was changed to Mr. C, but the two people were actually running the mall together.

The problem arose when tenants did not pay rent for a year after signing the contract, citing the building environment as an issue. Accordingly, Mr. A filed a suit for capital punishment in accordance with the clause in the contract that states that the lease can be terminated if two monthly rents are not paid.

However, the tenants argued that since Mr. A did not comply with his obligation to provide information, he had no obligation to pay monthly rent. The claim is that sufficient information about the building was not provided at the time of signing the contract. They emphasized that due to the lack of facilities such as kitchens and septic tanks necessary for operating a restaurant inside the shopping mall, expansion construction was inevitable, which resulted in losses such as additional costs and delays in business days.

He also pointed out that when it rained, water leaked into the building and dirt and trash flowed in, but Mr. A did not take any action against this. At the same time, Mr. A's building delivery lawsuit was an abuse of power and requested that the suit be withdrawn.

In response, Mr. A countered that the tenants had confirmed the condition of the building at the time of signing the contract. He explained that the contract clearly states that the building will be rented in its current condition, and that the expansion work was also something promised when the tenant's name was changed to Mr. C.

The court ruled in Mr. A’s favor. The court said, “The defendant’s claim that there is no obligation to pay monthly rent can be understood in the sense that damages occurred, such as construction costs and rainwater inflow,” but added, “Given that the tenants pursued expansion construction out of necessity at the time of the contract, they must have fully inspected the building.”

He continued, “The contract also includes a provision for renting as is,” and ruled, “Considering these points, it is difficult to say that Mr. A did not fulfill his obligation to provide information about the building.”

Attorney Jong-Hoon Han of Daeryun Law Firm (Limited), who represented Mr. A in this case, said, “During the construction process, it was agreed that the tenant would bear the costs and the landlord would have all rights thereto,” adding, “Because the tenants proceeded with the construction through agreement with Mr. A as needed, the claim that they suffered damage due to lack of proper information is not persuasive.”

[View full article] - A tenant who did not pay rent, saying he did not comply with his landlord obligations... “The building must be returned”(Shortcut)