뉴질랜드의 임대차법에 관한 연구(주택 임대차를 중심으로)

A Study on NZ Residential Tenancy Law

In twentieth century many countries have enacted some legislations which have controls of residential tenancies. In the background for those legislations there are some reasons as follows: The forces of supply and demand, if it had been left unchecked, would give landlords a bargaining superiority over their tenants, which modern ideas of social justice have been unwilling to accept. In consequence, ever since the First World War, legislation has been used to redress the balance in favour of the tenant. With changes in government the tide of protection has ebbed and flowed. But the need for protection of some kind is today generally accepted and it is highly unlikely that landlord and tenant will ever be restored to their nineteenth-century freedom of contract. Since the enactment of the first legislation in New Zealand in 1916 the extent and application of rent control legislation has varied considerably. The principal statute at present in forces is the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, the main objective of which are: (1) To restate the law relating to residential tenancies; and (2) To define the rights and obligations of landlords and tenants of residential properties; and (3) To provide rent control; and (4) To establish a tribunal to determine disputes arising between such landlords and tenants From the comparison NZ Residential Tenancy Law with Korean counterpart legislation, some differences could easily be found. Firstly, in Korean legislation, we generally have 󰡒the guarantee of the appropriate term for tenant in the case of fixed term tenancy and the appropriate control of increase of rental fee as regulating contents to strengthen the right of tenancy, and further, Section 4 of Korean Residential Tenancy Act provides the guarantee of minimum two year period tenancy for tenants. In contrast, Residential Tenancy Act 1986 provides no such provisions, instead, they uphold the principle of freedom of contract in that respect. In relation to the regulation of increase rental fee, Korean legislation regards the request of increase of rental fee as the right of formation, and it is being controlled by the method that just limit the ratio for the increase annually. (Korean Residential Tenancy Act. Section 7) In contrast, New Zealand󰡑s legislation has a regular controlling limiting criteria, tenants can request the appropriate decision about the fixed variation of rental fee according to the market valuation to the tenancy tribunal. Secondly, where the NZ landlord disposes of his or her interest in the premises to any other person, the NZ tenant shall pay to the purchaser rent and can claim rights of tenancy under the tenancy agreement. But where the Korean landlord disposes of his or her interest in the premises to any other person, the Korean tenant shall pay to the purchaser rent and can claim rights of tenant under the tenancy agreement, only if Korean tenant have occupied the premises and finished resident registration before landlord s disposition of his or her interest in the premises. Thirdly, there is big difference between NZ bonds and Korean bonds. Since Korean tenants pay considerable amounts of money as bonds to landlords under the tenancy agreement, it is very important for tenants to recover bond money on the termination of the tenancy from landlords. Therefore Korean residential tenancies Act have a few provisions about bonds. Fourthly, from the comparison NZ residential tenancies act with Korean counterpart legislation, the most special feature of NZ Residential Tenancies Act is the tenancy tribunal which has exclusive jurisdiction to hear any disputes between landlords and tenants where the tenancy is a residential one. I believe that establishment of the tenancy tribunal in Korea as special organ