The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The apartment house that the defendant damaged the entrance, etc. of the main reason for appeal is owned by B, which is operated by the defendant as the representative director. Thus, the defendant's act constitutes self-help and thus illegal;

2. The self-help of the possessor, as prescribed by Article 209 of the Civil Act, is the right to defend or restore the possession by the real force in a case where the infringement of possession still holds the possibility of fieldity or tracking.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the lower court acknowledged the following facts: (a) around 12:30 on May 19, 2016, the enforcement officer: (b) allowed the Defendant to withdraw from the apartment site No. 801, 703, Gangdong-gu Seoul, Seoul to claim a right of retention; (c) completed the delivery execution of the apartment at around 14:20 on the same day; (d) C, the head of the D reconstruction and improvement project partnership, who is the executor, delivered the apartment to the enforcement officer; and (e) replaced the entrance locking device after receiving the apartment from the enforcement officer; and (e) the Defendant, at around 15:00 on the same day, entered and resided in the apartment after setting up the entrance and damaging the locking device.

According to the above facts, at the time of entering an apartment, the Defendant had already replaced the locking device of the entrance door at the time of entering the apartment, and the possession of the apartment of the association was established, so there is a possibility of the fieldity or tracking of the infringement of possessory right

The act of the defendant who was deprived of possession due to the real force does not constitute self-help as prescribed by the Civil Act.

B. Even based on the data submitted by the defendant, the company operated by the defendant is not the owner of the apartment but the right to claim the registration of transfer of ownership. Thus, the act of the defendant damaging the entrance door and locking device and entering the apartment without following the procedure prescribed by the Act constitutes an act of damaging another's property and impairing another's structure.

3. Accordingly, the defendant's appeal is justified.