Tenant with "Sale after 4 Years of Jeonse" Special Agreement Wins First Trial Against Landlord in Lawsuit

A tenant who lived in a jeonse lease for a certain period and filed a lawsuit claiming that the landlord broke the promise to purchase the property at market price upon expiration won the first trial. Photo unrelated to the article. Photo by Jinhyung Kang aymsdream@

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Daehyun] A tenant who lived in a jeonse lease for a certain period and promised to purchase the property at market price upon expiration won the first trial after filing a lawsuit against the landlord who violated the agreement. According to the court on the 23rd, the Civil Division 48 of the Seoul Central District Court (Chief Judge Lee Giseon) recently ruled in favor of Ms. A (80, female) in the first trial of the ownership transfer registration claim lawsuit filed against Mr. B.

Previously, in October 2016, Ms. A signed a jeonse lease contract to rent an apartment owned by Mr. B in Gangnam-gu, Seoul, for four years. The deposit was 700 million won. A month later, Ms. A and Mr. B's mother drafted a document titled "Special Provisions" at the top. The bottom of the document included contents such as ▲Due to the lessor's gift tax issues, a sale could not be made, so a jeonse contract was signed ▲Upon expiration on November 30, 2020, the lessor agreed to sell the property to the lessee at the then market price ▲Based on this, the lessee bore repair costs exceeding 30 million won.

After the jeonse contract period expired, Ms. A demanded that Mr. B's side sell the apartment according to the special provisions document. However, Mr. B's side refused, claiming they never agreed to the sales contract or the special provisions document.

Mr. B's side stated, "Ms. A asked to draft a pledge because 'a lot of money was spent on structural modification work,' so my mother signed on her behalf due to personal scheduling. She was deceived into signing by the elderly mother with the meaning of 'If there is an intention to sell after four years, it will be sold at the then market price'." They also pointed out, "Ms. A even altered the contract by writing 'Refer to the back for special provisions' on the apartment jeonse contract she kept." In fact, the contract kept by Ms. A included the phrase 'Refer to the back for special provisions,' but the contract held by Mr. B did not have this phrase.

The first trial judged that an agreement on the special provisions was made, and ruled that Mr. B must receive about 400 million won, which is the appraised value of approximately 1.1 billion won as of November 30, 2020, minus the 700 million won deposit, and proceed with the ownership transfer registration. The court stated, "The fact that Ms. A spent a large amount on structural modification work itself suggests it was based on the premise of future ownership transfer," and "Mr. B's mother, who had full authority to act regarding the contract, accurately understood the meaning of the terms written in each special provisions document and signed accordingly."

Meanwhile, Ms. A faced a criminal trial on charges of forgery and use of forged documents due to Mr. B's accusation. Judge Park Seol-ah of the Criminal Division 24 of the Seoul Central District Court, who presided over the first trial, recently acquitted her. Judge Park stated, "Even if the contract and the special provisions document were separately created at different times, the special provisions appear to be an annexed or related agreement to the jeonse contract," and "It does not seem that Ms. A wrote the phrase to gain an advantageous outcome in the dispute."

Both the civil and criminal trials are scheduled for second trials due to appeals by Mr. B and the prosecution.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.