Presiding Judge Kang Woochan of Seoul Northern District Court
First Case Targeting the General Public
Added Section Explaining Key Issues in Simple Terms
“Possible Expansion of Easy-Read Judgments”
#. Mr. B had rented a house from May 2015 for two years and then made an additional contract to rent it from July 2018 to July 2022. At that time, Mr. B borrowed 20 million KRW from Company A and transferred 20 million KRW of the rental deposit of the house he rented as collateral for the loan debt. The repayment deadline for Mr. B's loan was January 2027, and the interest rate was 20% per annum. In April 2022, Mr. C purchased the house from the previous landlord and completed the ownership transfer registration. However, Mr. B did not repay the principal and interest of the loan to Company A. As of January last year, Mr. B's loan debt amounted to a total of 24.59 million KRW in principal and interest. Accordingly, Company A filed a lawsuit demanding, “Mr. B must deliver the house to Mr. C, and Mr. C must pay 20 million KRW to Mr. B upon receiving the house.”
Presiding Judge Kang Woo-chan of Civil Division 10 at Seoul Northern District Court ruled partially in favor of the plaintiff in the building delivery claim lawsuit (2023gada155398) filed by Company A against Mr. B and Mr. C. The court added an “easier explanation of the main issues disputed by Mr. C, who proceeded without legal representation” to the judgment document.
A so-called “easy-to-understand judgment” for self-represented litigants has been issued. The court created a judgment document that includes an easy explanation of the judgment’s intent and key issues for parties who proceed without legal counsel. This is seen as an effort to approach the parties more closely and could be generally applied to parties lacking legal knowledge.
Judgment Written in Polite Language
Judge Kang used honorific language, unlike the usual judgment format. He stated, “The presiding judge promised in court to carefully review the parts that the defendant is most curious and aggrieved about.” He added, “We thoroughly reviewed the relevant legal principles and facts to ensure nothing was overlooked and reached a conclusion accordingly. Below is a detailed explanation.” He continued, “Although the legal principles are difficult, I tried to explain them as simply as possible to avoid any unfairness,” and wrote, “Even in cases without lawyers, the court sincerely tries its best for each case, and I hope this is understood through this explanation.”
The “easy judgment” was written to help ordinary citizens understand the legal issues at their level. Judge Kang explained, “Once the claim for the return of the deposit is notified to the previous landlord that it has been assigned, the previous landlord no longer needs to return that amount to the tenant, as it will not affect the person who acquired the deposit claim.” He further stated, “Even if the new landlord extends the contract period with the tenant, they cannot make such claims against the person who acquired the deposit return claim.”
He added, “The rights cannot suddenly change unfavorably between third parties just because the claim was reassigned again. Therefore, when buying or selling a house with tenants, it is essential to check whether the deposit return claim is seized or assigned. Sellers must also inform buyers of this fact.”
Judge Kang summarized, “The deposit return claim has already been transferred to another person, and monthly rent is only deductible within the deposit limit. If the landlord (or subsequent new landlord) and tenant are allowed to extend the term additionally, the rights of the creditor who acquired the deposit will vanish into thin air. Would the law, which pursues fairness and transactional security, allow such a situation? According to this legal logic, Mr. C’s claim cannot be accepted. I hope this explanation helps you understand.”
Judgments with Illustrations Also Created
This is not the first time Judge Kang has written an “easy judgment.” While serving as presiding judge of Administrative Division 11 at Seoul Administrative Court, he was involved in judgments that included “easy-to-understand summaries and requests for youth plaintiffs” in school violence cases, and judgments with “easy-to-understand summaries” and illustrations for disabled plaintiffs. The court views this as potentially expanding the provision of “easy judgments” to non-disabled adults lacking legal knowledge.
Judge Kwon Hyung-kwan (42, Judicial Research and Training Institute class 40) of Seoul Central District Court, who served as a research fellow at the Judicial Policy Research Institute, stated in a research report on “Easy-Read Judgment Preparation for Persons with Disabilities” that “this judgment shows the possibility of expanding the provision of easy-read or plain language judgments not only to persons with disabilities with low literacy but also to non-disabled adults.” He also noted, “In the United States, there have been cases where courts provided judgments in plain language to help self-represented litigants without lawyer assistance.”
Han Su-hyun, Legal Times Reporter
※This article is based on content supplied by Law Times.
© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.
