In case where an order of delivery to the owner of a building issued to the lessee for the delivery of the leased real estate, whether the lessee's access to the building in order to take out the margin owned by him/her constitutes a crime of intrusion on the building.

The order of delivery pursuant to Article 647 of the Civil Procedure Act of the court of auction shall be effective only for the debtor. Thus, the delivery of real estate owned by a third party, not for the debtor, can not be executed, and even if the third party delivered the tenant's right of possession, it cannot affect the tenant's possession, so the tenant's possession is under the tenant's own possession. Therefore, it cannot be said that the tenant entered the place under his own possession to take out the lebs of the lebs of the lebs of the lebs of the lebs of the lebs of the lebs.

Defendant

Prosecutor

Jeonju District Court Decision 74No607 delivered on November 1, 1974

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the records, the judgment of the court below is justified by holding that the defendant was not guilty on December 1969 when he occupied this case as the co-defendants of the court below on the lease of this case and operated rice and rice on the non-indicted 1 while the auction procedure was in progress on June 20, 1972 due to the obligation relationship with the non-indicted 1,00, but the house and refined house were knocked to the above non-indicted 5,81,000 won, but the co-defendants of the court below refused it without delivering it to the above non-indicted 5,81,00, but the above co-defendants of the court below's order to deliver the above co-defendants of the court below's branch court's non-indicted 1 to the above non-indicted 1 to the above non-indicted 1 to the above non-indicted 1 to the above non-indicted 1 to whom the defendant had already occupied the above co-defendant's obligation to the above non-indicted 1 to the above defendant's delivery order to the above co-execution.

2. If the defendant was using a building for the purpose of auction before the decision to commence compulsory sale was made, it cannot be said that the successful bidder can not set up against the successful bidder, regardless of whether the lease could be set up or not, and the successful bid alone can only give the complaint against the possession and use of the building, and the order of delivery pursuant to Article 647 of the Civil Procedure Act of the court of auction can only be effective against the debtor. Thus, the delivery execution cannot be carried out against the third party's possession, not against the debtor who executes the order. Thus, even if the defendant's possession was carried out in delivery execution, it cannot be affected by any influence on the defendant's possession, it is under the possession of the defendant. This is because the defendant, the possessor, was not in accordance with the legal remedy procedure for the delivery execution, or is all general. Accordingly, it cannot be deemed that the defendant entered the court of auction with the intention of carrying out the white paper owned by him under his own possession, and therefore, it constitutes a crime of intrusion on the building. This opinion is justified and without merit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yang Byung-ho (Presiding Justice)