“I Lived There for 1 Year and a Half, but Lost”: Landlord Pays Thirty Million Won (3,000 Man Won) After Tenant Removal (Understanding, Reporter Jang Soon-won)
An independent exercise, not a statement by the video creator or verification of every claim in the video.
Compare Converted Rent Differences Separately from Tenant Losses
In an independent example, assume liability is established, no damages amount was agreed at renewal refusal, and lawfully converted monthly rent is KRW 1,000,000 for the old lease and KRW 1,500,000 for the new lease. The old rent for 3 months is KRW 3,000,000, while the difference of KRW 500,000 for 24 months is KRW 12,000,000. If separately recognized loss from refusal is KRW 8,000,000, the comparison gives KRW 12,000,000, without adding the three amounts. With other conditions unchanged and recognized loss instead at KRW 15,000,000, the comparison gives KRW 15,000,000. Converted rent differences and actual losses are different benchmarks, and the entire new deposit is not treated as profit.
Check for yourself
- Was a damages amount agreed when renewal was refused?
- Have the applicable conversion rate and timing for turning deposits into monthly rent been established?
- Are claimed costs recognized as losses caused by renewal refusal, and are any items counted twice?
Limits of application
This does not recalculate the actual case’s deposits, conversion rates or recognized losses. The example assumes monthly rents have already been lawfully converted and does not calculate liability, evidentiary findings, agreement validity, claim limits, delay damages or other elements of an actual judgment. It cannot determine liability for sale or vacancy.
- What to look for
- Examine why actual occupation did not eliminate reletting liability, distinguishing circumstances at renewal refusal from later funding problems.
- Why it matters
- Place refusal, the would-have-been renewal expiry and reletting on a timeline, then assess evidence for exceptions separately from damages. This helps prevent emphatic debate from being mistaken for the scope of a judgment.
Timeline
6 segmentsThe discussion focuses on whether refund obligations were foreseeable and whether alternatives to reletting existed. The separately checked Supreme Court case summary likewise requires circumstances unforeseeable at refusal and the necessity of reletting, placing the burden of proof on the landlord. Temporary cash pressure or a record of actual occupation alone does not establish an exception.