IANAL. Also IDKWYL (I don’t know wher you live), but in the sane Western world (the EU), there’s no need for a notice in your case - usually it’s a good idea to check with the landlords/tenants wether they plan on renewing the lease or not so you both know where the other side is standing.

And, of course, since the contract is time-bound, the assumption is that both possibilities (renewal and no renewal) are on the table, and neither require any side to go out of their way to announce their intent on what happens after the contract expires.

The ‘default’ option is no renewal - otherwise there is no meaning in making it time-bound and burdening the parties with the need to re-establish a new agreement each contract term. So the need to give a notice of “I plan to do xy after the contract” makes no sense, let alone it carrying contractual punishments.

You weren’t required to give a notice. Even if the contract stated so, that clause would most likely get nullified, which I sincerely doubt (again, in most of Europe), since it disproportionally and predatorily benefits one party.

And again, IANAL. You should get one.

But, were I your lawyer (which I most definitely am not), I would scold you for writing the notice in the firdt place since it puts you in a submissive position (your landlord can now claim that by giving notice you “showed” that you “think” you “owe” the landlord notice, ergo you owe them money for the 2 days in May (assuming a 30-day notice), which they conveniently round up to an entire month. I sincerely hope you didn’t include explicit (and unnecessary) wording along the lines of THIS IS A 30-DAY NOTICE AS PER $WHATEVER ANNOUNCING OUR INTENTION TO MOVE OUT BY DATE.

Of course, this statement makes no sense. The contract meets its natural end by the date given and that’s it. No notices, no payments, no apartment rented out. A renewal requires the good-will of both parties.

My IANAL advice for you going forward is: Stick to the German philosophy - keep things as brief as possible to give the “enemy” less ammo on the one, and to deal with any edge-cases that don’t go in your favour.

It’s a delicate balance. A fine art, even - the art of writing contracts. And it’s hard.

A good contract leaves no room for large gaps in interpretation (loopholes), but allows some flexibility. It also keeps the parties on equal footing (neither subjegated to the others) is in itself a work of fine art.

Bad contracts are (or should be) treated as insults. Shuld the insult be bad enough, ripping the piece of paper conveying the contract out of protest. (Remember - the contract is not the piece of paper, but the words on it and an oral agreement is just as valid as a written contract, but harder to prove - sometimes the legislature decides to nullify all oral contracts for specific “high-impact” things like home sale, but that’s another can of worms).

Going forward, do not be afraid to reject contracts and call for a middle ground (suggest amendments) which protect your rights and interests. Not doing it is a terrible idea - the only thing you have to “lose” in such a case is all the obligations that weigh you down from the bad contract.

Germans would actually, I assure you, find it insulting if you just accepted the initial proposal of a contract if it isn’t a fixed template given by the Minstries (in that case not amending is acceptable since they strike a good balance, but amending is by no means impossible - these templates are, after all, mere suggestions meant to be acceptable for the majority of uses/circumstances).