The appeal is dismissed.

The former part of Article 209(2) of the Civil Act provides that “If an immovable has been deprived of possession thereof, the possessor of the immovable property may return the immovable property by excluding any person directly from the time of the deprivation.” The former part of Article 209(2) provides that “The possessor may return the real property by excluding any person directly from the time of the deprivation.”

In this context, the term “direct time” refers to “as soon as objectively possible” or “to the extent that it is deemed necessary to recover possession by excluding the perpetrator in light of social norms” (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da14116, Mar. 26, 1993). Whether the exercise of the right to de facto refund was carried out “on the direct basis” should be determined by examining not only the physical length, but also whether allowing the exercise of the right to de facto refund by acquiring possession established by the deprived person to the extent that it would undermine legal stability or peace or abuse of the right to de facto refund.

The judgment below

According to the reasoning, the court below held that there is a possibility of the fieldity or tracking of the infringement of the right of possession by changing the locking device of the entrance after the execution creditor has already received the apartment from the execution officer at the time of entering the apartment at the time when the defendant entered the apartment.

As it is difficult to see that the act of the defendant who deprived of possession by real force does not constitute self-help under the Civil Act.

In light of the facts charged, all of the charges of this case were convicted.

In light of the above legal principles and records, we affirm the above determination by the court below. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on self-help, etc. under the Civil Act, or by exceeding the bounds of free evaluation of evidence

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.