Series Index
Part 1 | Unpaid Corporate Transactions: Liability Behind the Veil
Part 2 | Trade Name Continuity and the Liability of a Successor
Part 3 | Directors’ Liability for Damages
Part 4 | The Person Behind the Company Name
Part 5 | The Limits of Self-Defense in Assault Cases
Part 6 | Criminal Settlement Money: How Much Is Appropriate?
Part 7 | Can Quasi-Rape Be Established If One Has No Memory After Drinking?
Part 8 | Freelancers and Severance Pay: What Courts Really Examine
Part 9 | Assignment of Receivables for Business Financing
Part 10 | Can You Get Divorced If Your Foreign Spouse Disappears?
Part 11 | Can a Tenant Terminate a Lease if Repairs Are Refused?
By Hong Seung-kwon
Principal Attorney, PAN Law Firm (skh@law-pan.com)
Most tenants experience a leaking ceiling at least once during their tenancy. If they are particularly unfortunate, the landlord repeatedly promises to "fix it soon," yet weeks pass without any action. In such situations, the tenant may choose to arrange the repairs personally and later seek reimbursement, or request a corresponding reduction in rent.
But what if the defect is serious? Can a tenant terminate the lease and recover the security deposit based on the landlord's legal duty to make repairs? This article examines the scope of a landlord's repair obligations and the legal requirements for terminating a lease on that basis.
Even after leasing out a property, a landlord remains legally obligated to maintain it in a condition suitable for the tenant's intended use and enjoyment. Article 623 of the Korean Civil Act requires landlords to keep the leased property in a condition necessary for its proper use throughout the lease term.
Where, then, is the legal boundary?
The Supreme Court of Korea has held that landlords are generally not responsible for minor defects that tenants can easily repair at little cost. However, when a defect is serious enough to prevent the property from being used for its intended purpose, the responsibility to repair rests with the landlord.
The key issue is whether the landlord's failure to repair constitutes a sufficiently serious breach to justify termination of the lease. Problems such as water leaks or a broken boiler will often fall into this category. Mold, however, may present a more complicated situation. Liability may depend on whether the mold resulted from the tenant's failure to ventilate the premises or from structural defects such as inadequate insulation.
Some cases are even more difficult to assess. A leak may worsen because the tenant refused access for repairs. In other situations, the landlord may be willing to carry out repairs, but only in a manner the tenant considers inadequate—for example, performing temporary patchwork despite the likelihood that the leak will recur.
In practice, it is these gray areas that most frequently lead to legal disputes. Because substantial security deposits are often at stake, such conflicts can place significant financial and emotional pressure on both parties.
When a dispute reaches court, the central question is whether the landlord failed to fulfill the legal duty to repair. Courts typically evaluate a range of surrounding circumstances, including the severity of the defect, whether the property remained reasonably habitable, the communications exchanged between the landlord and tenant, the anticipated repair costs, and other relevant facts that help establish the nature of the landlord's obligations.
Does the existence of a defect automatically entitle the tenant to terminate the lease if the landlord fails to act?
Generally, it does not.
Before terminating the lease, the tenant is ordinarily required to give the landlord formal notice and allow a reasonable period to complete the necessary repairs. Informing the landlord by telephone or text message that the lease will be terminated unless the repairs are completed may be sufficient. However, from an evidentiary standpoint, sending a certified written notice is the most prudent course of action.
Terminating a lease should never be taken lightly. If a dispute appears likely—which is often the case—tenants should carefully document all repair requests and provide written notice specifying a reasonable deadline for performance. Where the scope of the landlord's repair obligations is likely to be contested, it is advisable to consult a lawyer and confirm that the legal requirements for termination have been satisfied before vacating the property.
About the Author
Hong Seung-kwon is an attorney at Law Firm PAN, where he handles a broad range of civil and criminal litigation as well as emerging legal issues arising in the digital era. His work focuses on how technological innovation, property rights, and evolving regulatory policies reshape legal frameworks and market order.
