Tenant claims "I was prevented from recovering the deposit"... Why is the law dismissing the claim?

Early termination of lease contract... ‘Landlord’s fault vs. tenant’s fault’
The court said, “It does not fall under the protection period for recovery of the rights… Circumstances of unauthorized sublease by the tenant”

Even if a commercial lease contract was terminated midway, the court ruled that if there was no clear agreement on the termination point, the protection period for recovery of key money should be based on the initial contract termination date.

Last October, the Jeju District Court dismissed the plaintiff's claim in a rental deposit lawsuit filed by self-employed person A against building owner B.

Mr. A signed a commercial lease contract with Mr. B in 2022 for a three-year contract period, but requested termination a few months after signing due to personal circumstances.

Mr. B responded, and the two parties reached an agreement on the premise of terminating the contract.

Afterwards, Mr. A found a new tenant, signed a key money contract, and even coordinated the schedule for signing the lease contract between Mr. B and the new tenant.

However, a problem arose when Mr. B changed his previous position and rejected the lease agreement.

This is because Mr. B refused to sign a contract with the new tenant, saying he would use the commercial space himself.

Mr. A claimed that this hindered his opportunity to recover the rights money.

In addition, Mr. B demanded payment of approximately 30 million won, claiming that he did not return part of the deposit without his consent.

Mr. B refuted this. The notice was that Mr. A had subleased part of the store to a third party without permission, so the contract was terminated.

It was emphasized that the date of the key money contract signed by Mr. A does not fall within the key money recovery protection period under the Commercial Lease Act.

The court ruled in Mr. B’s favor.

The court said, “It is difficult to say that there was a specific agreement on the termination point of the lease in the agreement process between the two parties,” and added, “The protection period for collection of rights applies from six months before the end of the initial contract until the end, so the defendant’s sabotage does not fall within this period.”

He added, "It has been confirmed that the plaintiff ran a 'Shop & Shop' type advertisement with the intention of subletting part of the building. This is subletting without consent, and the defendant is not liable for damages under the Commercial Lease Act. The rental deposit not returned by the defendant is justified because it deducted the cost of restoration to its original state."

Attorney Kim Dong-hwan of Daeryun Law Firm, who represented Mr. B, explained, "Mr. B had no intention of acknowledging the right to sublease to Mr. A from the beginning, so he put in a 'sublease prohibition clause' at the time of the lease contract. Not only was it not a period during which protection for collection of key money was recognized under the Commercial Lease Act, but the fact of unauthorized sublease was also a reason to exclude this obligation, so the claim related to key money itself was groundless."

#Tenant #Rights #Claim dismissed

Park Seok-ho (haitai2000@ikbc.co.kr)

[View full article]
Why is the law 'dismissing the claim' in response to tenant's claim that "recovery of key money was hindered"? (Shortcut)