「주택임대차보호법」상 임대인의 갱신거절 사유인 “실제 거주하려는 경우”의 의미에 대한 연구 – 뉴욕시에 적용될 수 있는 법률을 중심으로 -

In 2020, the Housing Lease Protection Act of South Korea was amended to include Article 6-3. The first sentence of this article establishes the tenant’s right to request a renewal of the lease, while the second sentence addresses the landlord’s right to refuse such renewal and specifies the grounds upon which that right may be exercised. In essence, Article 6-3 seeks to strike a balance between the landlord’s property rights and the tenant’s housing stability. Among the specified grounds, if a landlord, including their lineal ascendants or descendants, intends to occupy the leased residential property as their primary residence, the landlord may lawfully refuse to renew the lease. This provision effectively protects the landlord’s property rights. However, it may also undermine the tenant’s housing stability. Accordingly, a central issue arises: how should the term primary residence be interpreted, and how can the competing interests of landlords and tenants be reconciled? In the case 2022Da279795, the Supreme Court of South Korea proposed seven interpretive standards to clarify the meaning of primary residence. Several legal scholars have analyzed and criticized the Court’s reasoning. Moreover, legislative notes and policy reports relating to Article 6-3 offer further context. A comparative legal perspective, particularly through the examination of foreign jurisdictions, provides insight into possible interpretive frameworks. Notably, statutes in New York State and local laws in New York City regulate a landlord’s right to refuse lease renewal and explicitly provide criteria for interpreting primary residence. These laws introduce the requirement of an “immediate and compelling necessity” for the landlord to occupy the property. In addition, New York case law requires that the landlord’s exercise of this right be grounded in good faith. Compared to South Korea’s approach, the New York legal framework presents a more concrete and enforceable standard for determining what constitutes a primary residence. While the Korean Supreme Court has articulated seven interpretive criteria, questions remain as to whether these standards can be applied consistently across all relevant cases. This study, therefore, examines the statutory and case law framework in New York State and New York City concerning lease renewal and the interpretation of primary residence. It then analyzes the Korean Supreme Court’s seven standards in light of these foreign legal models. By conducting this comparative analysis, the study aims to clarify the meaning of primary residence under the Housing Lease Protection Act and ultimately to shed light on the Act’s broader purpose: achieving a fair balance between the landlord’s property rights and the tenant’s right to stable housing.