Under the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act (hereinafter simply referred to as “this Act”), a lessor does not necessarily have to be the owner of the leased building, and a person who has the right to dispose of the leased building or has lawful rental authority can also become a lessor. There is no particular problem if the lessor is the sole owner of the object of the lease, or if the object of the lease is shared and all co-owners of the building become lessors.
Since the title trustee is the complete owner externally according to the legal principles of title trust, he can become a legitimate lessor despite restrictions in the internal relationship with the title trustor. Although the title trustee is not the legal owner of the leased building, he or she may have legitimate rights to lease depending on the internal relationship between the title trustee and the trustee, so he or she can enter into a lease agreement.
Our Supreme Court has ruled that if a sales contract is canceled due to the fulfillment of a condition for canceling a sales contract, the lease contract with the buyer is a sale between the seller and the buyer after the buyer, who has been granted the right to lease the building by the seller as a condition for canceling the sales contract, leases the building. If the contract is canceled and the cancellation condition is fulfilled and the buyer loses the right to lease the building from then on, the lessee has the same relationship to the seller as the lessee who entered into a lease contract with a person who does not have the authority to enter into a lease contract. It is ruled that the seller's claim for ownership of the building cannot be claimed because it cannot claim the right to use the building.
Meanwhile, in accordance with the proviso to Article 548, Paragraph 1 of the Civil Act, a third party whose rights are not infringed upon by termination of the contract refers to a person who has acquired the rights to the subject matter of the contract and who satisfies the requirements for the acquisition of rights against the contracting party. . Therefore, if the object of lease is a commercial building, Article 3, Paragraph 1 of this Act requires registration by a person who satisfies certain requirements.
It is reasonable to assume that, like the lessee, he or she falls under a third party as prescribed in the proviso to Article 548, Paragraph 1 of the Civil Act, and if so, the lessee who has already met the requirements set forth in this Act at the time of termination of the contract has entered into a contract that forms the basis of the lessor's right to lease. Our Supreme Court's position is that, despite the cancellation of the lease, a person can use his or her own right to use the lease against the new owner.
A person who is actually exercising the rights of the owner of an unregistered building may also become a lessor under this Act.
In relation to housing lease, if one spouse is the owner of the house and the other party is the lessor under the lease contract, there is the issue of who should be the actual lessor. This issue can also be raised in the case of a commercial building.
In the case of a residential lease, the lessor listed in the lease agreement is not disclosed. Rather, what is important is whether the lessee occupies the leased building and whether he or she is registered as a resident. Unless there are special circumstances, the lessor may not own the leased building despite the name on the lease agreement. The owner should be viewed as the lessor, and in this case, the title holder in the lease agreement should be viewed as having simply omitted the indication of the owner, the principal, when concluding the lease as an agent of the owner of the leased building. However, in order to register a business, which is one of the requirements for obtaining opposition power and priority payment rights under this Act, a copy of the lease agreement must be attached, and in light of the fact that such lease agreement is announced to a third party, the case of lease of a commercial building is treated as a lease of a house. It cannot be interpreted, and it should be considered that the lessor in the lease agreement is the lessor, and that the owner of the building has granted the right to lease to such lessor.
Attorney Lee Yong-hwa of Ubiz Law Firm has extensive experience and deep expertise in the real estate field. Through his long practical experience, he has handled a variety of real estate-related issues and provides reasonable and practical solutions to customers.
UBIZ Law Firm, 6th floor, 418 Nonhyeon-ro, Gangnam-gu, Seoul 02-3452-9290
