Hello, this is Cheongchul Law Firm.

What happens if a tenant spends a large amount on renovation of a leased building, but that money actually came from government or local-government subsidies rather than the tenant's own funds? Can the tenant still demand reimbursement from the landlord when the lease ends? The Korean Supreme Court recently held that a tenant can exercise the right to claim useful expenses (yuikbi sanghwan cheonggu-gwon) even when the construction costs were covered by subsidies. This post summarizes the meaning and practical implications of that decision.

[Table of Contents]

1. What is the right to claim useful expenses?

2. Issues and facts of the case

3. The Supreme Court's reasoning — value increase, not source of funds

4. Practical implications for lease and jeonse disputes

What is the right to claim useful expenses?

Under Korean civil law, a tenant who has incurred expenses to objectively increase the value of the leased property may claim reimbursement from the landlord when the lease terminates. Typical examples include replacing aging electrical, fire-safety, or cooling systems, or carrying out large-scale construction that enhances the building's utility. Mere expenses for the tenant's own operational convenience do not qualify; the key question is whether the work objectively raised the value of the building itself.

Issues and facts of the case

In this case, a district office had leased a building under a jeonse contract and spent approximately KRW 4 billion on a full renovation. However, the entire construction cost was covered by subsidies from the national and city governments, not by the district office's own budget. After the lease ended, the district office sought reimbursement of useful expenses from the heirs of the building owner. The heirs countered as follows:

1. The district office covered the construction with subsidies, so it suffered no actual loss.

2. If no personal funds were spent, there is no basis to demand reimbursement.

The central question was therefore whether construction costs funded by subsidies still fall within the scope of useful-expense reimbursement.

The Supreme Court's reasoning — value increase, not source of funds

The Supreme Court rejected the heirs' arguments. Reimbursement of useful expenses is not about who bore the financial loss, but about whether the tenant's expenditure objectively increased the building's value and whether that value increase remains at the end of the lease.

In other words, if the following two requirements are met, the tenant may claim useful-expense reimbursement regardless of whether the funds came from personal money or subsidies:

1. The tenant incurred expenses that objectively increased the value of the building.

2. The increase in value remained at the time the lease ended.

The increased value of the building ultimately accrues to the landlord, and allowing the landlord to enjoy that benefit without compensation would be unjust.

Practical implications for lease and jeonse disputes

This decision provides an important standard for disputes over renovation and construction costs at the end of a lease. It makes clear that even when the tenant's funds came from external sources, the tenant can still claim useful expenses so long as the work objectively increased the value of the building and that value remains.

From the landlord's perspective, the scope of the work and the remaining value increase must be carefully assessed. It is also advisable to address restoration clauses or waivers of useful expenses in the lease contract itself to prevent later disputes.

If you are facing difficulties over reimbursement of renovation or construction costs at the end of a lease or jeonse, please contact Cheongchul Law Firm. Our attorneys with extensive experience in real estate and lease disputes will work with you from the initial stages of the case to the conclusion and propose a reasonable resolution.

This post is provided for general legal information only and does not constitute legal advice on any specific matter. For actual cases, please consult an attorney individually.