Series Order
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?
Part 12 | Can a Subcontractor Recover Payment if the Main Contractor Disappears?
Part 13 | What You Must Know Before Your First Police Interview
Part 14 | Can a Real Estate Contract in a Land Transaction Permit Zone Be Cancelled Before Government Approval?
Part 15 | Is It Trespass to Enter Another Person's Home by Concealing Criminal Intent?
Part 16 | Impersonating Someone by Creating an Instagram Account Can Also Be a Criminal Offense
Part 17 | When Does an Indecent Act Become a Crime?
Part 18 | When a Water Leak Requires Repairs, Can the Tenant Decide the Repair Method?
By Hong Seung-kwon, Principal Attorney, PAN Law Firm (skh@law-pan.com)
During winter, a hot-water pipe may leak, causing water to seep into the ceiling of the unit below. In some cases, however, the tenant occupying the unit may refuse to allow the necessary repairs. It may seem unusual for a tenant, rather than a landlord, to refuse repairs, but such a case has actually occurred.
In the case concerned, a defect in the plumbing required the entire pipe to be replaced. The landlord therefore sought to replace the entire pipe despite the higher cost. The tenant, however, requested that only part of the pipe be repaired, arguing that a complete replacement would require more extensive construction and cause considerable inconvenience.
This article examines whether a tenant has the right to demand only partial repairs, focusing on Articles 624 and 625 of the Civil Act.
Preservation measures taken by a landlord refer to all actions necessary to maintain the leased property in its existing condition and remedy defects. Article 623 of the Civil Act requires a landlord to maintain the leased property in a condition necessary for the tenant’s use and enjoyment throughout the lease term. Court precedents have also held that the landlord is responsible for major repairs, including repairs to principal components of a building and the replacement of essential facilities. But does the landlord also have the right to choose how to fulfil that obligation? If the tenant disagrees with the chosen method, can the tenant refuse the repairs?
Article 624 of the Civil Act provides that “where a lessor performs an act necessary for the preservation of the leased property, the lessee may not refuse such act.”
It is also reasonable for the landlord, who bears the cost, to decide which repair method should be used. Technical decisions should be based on the opinion of a qualified contractor or specialist, and the tenant’s subjective preferences cannot replace such professional judgment. Accordingly, when a landlord selects a repair method based on a specialist’s assessment, the tenant generally cannot refuse the work.
In the case described above, if a complete replacement is necessary because of defective plumbing, the tenant cannot demand that the work be limited to partial repairs.
This does not mean that a tenant has no legal protection. However, the following two remedies are difficult to invoke and may therefore have limited practical effect. First, the tenant may argue that the repair method selected by the landlord is not necessary for the preservation of the leased property. Second, Article 625 of the Civil Act provides that when a landlord undertakes preservation work against the tenant’s will and the work makes it impossible to achieve the purpose of the lease, the tenant may terminate the lease. The tenant may therefore terminate the lease early by proving that the landlord’s repairs have made it impossible to achieve the purpose of the lease.
From the landlord’s perspective, if the tenant continues to refuse repairs, the landlord should first notify the tenant of the necessity and schedule of the work through a content-certified letter and retain records of all efforts to negotiate. If the tenant nevertheless continues to refuse, the landlord may apply for a provisional injunction requiring cooperation with the repairs or access to the property.
Because a landlord cannot forcibly enter a residence occupied by a tenant, the need for urgent preservation measures is more likely to be recognized when damage to the unit below continues to worsen while the parties await a judgment in the main proceedings. It may also be effective to seek indirect compulsory enforcement requiring the tenant to pay a specified amount for each violation of the court’s order.
About the Author
Hong Seung-kwon is a principal attorney at PAN Law Firm who handles a wide range of legal matters, including civil and criminal litigation and legal issues emerging in the digital age. Hong continuously analyzes how technological innovation, the legal order governing property rights and changes in regulatory policy affect the law and market order.
