The ‘Housing Lease Protection Act’ that did not reflect the “too high deposit deposit” goes to the Constitutional Court

Kim Seung-wan (center), chairman of the non-profit public interest corporation Friends, and Lee Dong-woo (right), an attorney who acted as legal representative together with the affiliated public interest hub, pose for a commemorative photo before submitting a constitutional complaint to the Constitutional Court in Jongno-gu, Seoul on the 12th. |Provided as a public hub

In the end, the Constitutional Court’s decision was made on the tenant’s ‘priority to repayment of the rental deposit’, which failed to reflect the nationwide increase in the deposit for Jeonse. This is the first time that a constitutional complaint has been filed over the subject of priority reimbursement and the guaranteed amount of the Housing Lease Protection Act.

According to the report by the Kyunghyang Shinmun, two tenants living in a multi-family house in Seoul filed a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court on the morning of the 12th, saying, “Articles 10(1) and 11 of the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Lease Protection Act violate the equal rights and property rights guaranteed by the Constitution.” submitted

The Housing Lease Protection Act stipulates a ‘priority repayment right’ that allows the lessee to receive a small deposit first when the house is auctioned off due to the lessor’s debt problem. This is to avoid the worst situation in which the lessee is evicted without getting a dime back of the deposit due to the landlord’s fault.

The problem is that the target and guaranteed amount for preferential repayment do not reflect the current rate of increase in Jeonse. According to data from the Korea Real Estate Agency, the average Jeonse price for an apartment in Seoul as of November last year was 63,2236,000 won. Row multi-family houses recorded 245,597,000 won.

If you look at the ‘Scope of the lessee subject to protection and the deposit to be paid first’ of the 10th Amended Enforcement Decree in May 2021, Seoul can use the preferential repayment right only for houses with a rental deposit of 150 million won or less. In this case, the amount that can be insured is not more than 500,000 won. In the metropolitan area overcrowding control areas and in Yongin, Hwaseong, Sejong, and Gimpo, the guarantee is limited to a maximum of 43 million won for deposits of 130 million won or less. Metropolitan cities and other cities specify that up to 23 million won is guaranteed for houses of 70 million won or less.

In the 30 years since 1984, when the right to preferential repayment was first specified in the Housing Lease Protection Act, the average value of the Jeonse deposit in Seoul increased 85.7 times from 5.53 million won (November 1985) to 474.02 million won (August 2021), while protection The target renter’s standard amount increased 50 times (3 million won in Seoul → 150 million won or less), and the preferred repayment amount only increased 16.7 times (3 million won → 50 million won).

With this constitutional complaint, the Constitutional Court will review whether the preferential repayment right falls under the property right of the lessee as stipulated by the Constitution, and if it falls under the property right, whether the standard amount of preferential repayment right, which is not linked to the real increase rate of the rental deposit, infringes on the property right of the lessee. see.

In a phone call on the 12th, lawyer Lee Dong-woo of Hoyeon Law Office, representing constitutional complaints along with Public Hub, an affiliated organization of Friends, a nonprofit public interest corporation, said, “Usually, houses that have been auctioned off have a lot of mortgages or preferential repayment rights, so the lessee is guaranteed with preferential repayment rights. It is difficult to get a deposit other than the amount,” he said. Lawyer Lee pointed out, “However, the amount of preferential repayment is absurdly low to protect people’s housing stability.

He continued, “There are few tenants who do not want a small deposit, but the reason they cannot live in a house with a small deposit is because the lessor does not set a small deposit. It violates the right to equality.”

Related Post

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *