Hello, this is Cheongchul Law Firm.

A tenant asks to renew a jeonse or monthly-rent lease, the landlord answers "I am going to move in myself," and the tenant moves out. A few months later the tenant learns that someone else is living in the home as a new tenant. Korea's Housing Lease Protection Act (주택임대차보호법) makes the landlord liable for the tenant's loss in this situation, and in September 2026 the Supreme Court made clear what a landlord must prove in order to avoid that liability.

This article explains when a landlord who refused renewal on the ground of owner occupancy and then let the home to a third party becomes liable, how the "unavoidable circumstances" a landlord relies on are assessed, and how the damages are calculated.

[Contents]

1. Refusing Renewal for Owner Occupancy, and the Restriction That Follows

2. The Supreme Court's Test for "Just Cause" and the Burden of Proof

3. Damages Are the Largest of Three Amounts

4. How to Check Whether a New Tenant Has Moved In

5. What Tenants and Landlords Should Each Prepare

Refusing Renewal for Owner Occupancy, and the Restriction That Follows

If a tenant requests renewal between six months and two months before the lease term ends, the landlord may not refuse without just cause. The landlord may refuse, however, on grounds listed in the Act, one of which is that the landlord, or the landlord's lineal ascendant or descendant, intends to actually reside in the home (Article 6-3(1), item 8 of the Housing Lease Protection Act).

Because this ground concerns the landlord's future plans, the tenant has little means of checking whether it is true. The Act therefore provides an after-the-fact control. Where a landlord refuses renewal on the ground of owner occupancy and then, before the period for which the lease would have been renewed had the request not been refused expires, lets the home to a third party without just cause, the landlord must compensate the tenant for the loss caused by the refusal (Article 6-3(5)). A renewed lease runs for two years (Article 6-3(2)), so this covers a landlord who lets the home to someone else within two years after the original lease ended.

Broken down, liability requires that the tenant requested renewal, that the landlord refused it on the ground of owner occupancy, that the landlord let the home to a third party within the following two years, and that there was no just cause for that letting. Most disputes turn on the last element.

By its wording, paragraph (5) addresses the case where the home is let to a third party. Where the landlord leaves the home vacant or sells it, liability has to be examined separately from this provision, looking at matters such as whether the intention to reside was genuine at the time of the refusal.

The Supreme Court's Test for "Just Cause" and the Burden of Proof

In Supreme Court Decision 2026Da203203 (September 10, 2026), the landlord of an apartment refused renewal on the ground of owner occupancy and then let the apartment to a third party before the period for which the lease would have been renewed had passed. When the tenant claimed damages, the landlord argued that a tenant of another property the landlord owned had demanded the return of a lease deposit, leaving no choice but to let this apartment.

The Supreme Court held that two things are required for just cause under paragraph (5) to be recognized. The landlord must have let the home to a third party because of circumstances that could not have been foreseen at the time of the refusal, and letting the home to a third party must have been unavoidable. It further held that the burden of proving that such just cause existed lies with the landlord.

In that case the appellate court found that the circumstances the landlord relied on were not unforeseeable at the time of the refusal and that letting the apartment to a third party was not unavoidable either, and so did not recognize just cause. The Supreme Court found no error in that judgment and dismissed the landlord's appeal.

Two parts of this test deserve attention. First, it is not enough that circumstances changed after the refusal; the circumstances must have been unforeseeable when renewal was refused. Second, even where unforeseeable circumstances arose, letting that home to a third party must have been unavoidable. In the case above, a deposit refund demand from the tenant of another property was held to satisfy neither requirement. The tenant does not have to show that the landlord's stated intention to reside was false; the landlord has to prove both requirements with evidence.

The burden of proof is also on the landlord at the stage of refusing renewal. The Supreme Court has held that the landlord bears the burden of proving that the case is one where the landlord intends to actually reside in the home, that such an intention cannot be recognized merely because the landlord has stated it, and that it is to be assessed by taking together the landlord's housing situation, how the landlord came to have the intention, the circumstances before and after the refusal, and whether and how the landlord prepared to move in (Supreme Court Decision 2022Da279795, December 7, 2023). A landlord who refuses renewal for owner occupancy thus carries the burden of explanation and proof both when refusing and afterward.

Damages Are the Largest of Three Amounts

The Act sets out how the amount is calculated. Unless the parties agreed on liquidated damages at the time of the refusal, the damages are the largest of the following three amounts (Article 6-3(6) of the Housing Lease Protection Act).

• Three months of the converted monthly rent at the time of the refusal

• Two years of the difference between the converted monthly rent the landlord obtained by letting to the third party and the converted monthly rent at the time of the refusal

• The loss the tenant suffered because of the refusal

Converted monthly rent is the monthly rent plus the deposit converted into a monthly rent amount. The deposit is converted at the lower of 10% per year and the Bank of Korea base rate plus 2% per year (Article 7-2 of the Act; Article 9 of its Enforcement Decree). A jeonse lease with no monthly rent is calculated the same way, by converting the deposit into monthly rent.

For example, assume a conversion rate of 4.5% per year, and suppose a home that was under a jeonse lease with a deposit of KRW 300 million at the time of the refusal is newly let for a deposit of KRW 400 million. The converted monthly rent at the time of the refusal is KRW 1,125,000, so three months comes to KRW 3,375,000. The converted monthly rent under the new lease is KRW 1,500,000, making the difference KRW 375,000 per month and KRW 9,000,000 over two years. Here the larger of the two, KRW 9,000,000, becomes the reference amount, and if the tenant proves that the actual loss was greater, the tenant can claim that amount.

The more the landlord raises the rent after the tenant leaves, the larger the two-year difference becomes. Moving costs, brokerage fees and the burden of paying higher rent because a home on the same terms could not be found may be claimed as actual loss under the third item, and this part must be proved by the tenant with evidence.

How to Check Whether a New Tenant Has Moved In

After moving out, it is hard to know who lives in the home. One way is to check property listings or ask a nearby licensed real estate agent whether the home was put up for lease, and the law also provides a procedure.

A person who was the tenant under a lease whose renewal was refused on the ground of owner occupancy may, as an interested party to the housing lease, request lease information from an authority that grants fixed dates (확정일자) (Article 3-6(3) of the Act; Article 5, item 5 of the Enforcement Decree). The request covers a lease in existence during the period for which the lease would have been renewed had the request not been refused, and shows the leased property, the names of the landlord and tenant, the date the fixed date was granted, the rent and deposit, and the lease term (Article 6(1) of the Enforcement Decree). The rent and deposit under the new lease are the basis for calculating the two-year difference described above.

If the new tenant has not obtained a fixed date, however, the lease may not show up this way, so it is best used together with other means of checking.

What Tenants and Landlords Should Each Prepare

A tenant should secure the following materials.

• The lease agreement and renewal records — text messages, messenger conversations or content-certified mail showing that renewal was requested and that the landlord refused on the ground of owner occupancy

• Existing rent records — materials showing the deposit and monthly rent at the time of the refusal

• New lease records — materials showing that a new tenant moved in and the deposit and monthly rent under the new lease

• Expense records — receipts for moving costs, brokerage fees and other expenses incurred in moving

Liability under paragraph (5) presupposes that the landlord refused renewal on the ground of owner occupancy, so it matters whether the request for renewal and the reason for refusal remain on record. If the matter was discussed only by phone, it is advisable to confirm the content again by text message or similar means.

A landlord should check, before refusing renewal for owner occupancy, whether the plan to move in is concrete. If circumstances change after the refusal and the home has to be let again, the landlord should keep materials showing that those circumstances could not have been foreseen at the time of the refusal and that letting was unavoidable. In the case discussed above, a deposit refund demand from the tenant of another property was not accepted as just cause.

At Cheongchul Law Firm, the attorneys who handle real estate and lease cases directly from start to finish review each matter from the position of the landlord or the tenant. If you have learned that a home was let again after your renewal was refused for owner occupancy, or you are considering letting a home after refusing renewal, please contact us through our consultation booking page.

This post is intended to provide legal information and does not constitute legal advice on any specific matter. Conclusions may differ depending on the facts of each case, so please consult a professional.