[1] The meaning of "on the job" under the former part of Article 209 (2) of the Civil Code, which provides for the right to self-refluence of real estate and the standard for determining whether the right to self-refluence was exercised "on the job"

[2] The case affirming the judgment below which found the defendant guilty on the ground that the act of withdrawing possession does not constitute self-help under the Civil Act, in case where the execution officer conducted the delivery execution of real estate against the defendant who claimed a right of retention in the apartment owned by the execution creditor Gap association Gap, and the defendant was indicted for destroying the apartment entrance and locking the apartment door and forced opening of the apartment and entering the apartment, on the ground that he forced him to enter the apartment, he did not constitute self-help under the Civil Act

[1] The former part of Article 209(2) of the Civil Act provides that “When the possessor of an immovable has been deprived of possession thereof, the possessor may recover the real estate by excluding the perpetrator immediately after the deprivation.” Here, the term “ex officio” means that “ex officio as soon as possible objectively and objectively,” or “ex officio to the extent deemed necessary to recover possession by excluding the perpetrator in light of social norms,” and should be determined by examining not only the physical length where the exercise of the right to self-explosion was carried out “ex officio” but also whether allowing the person who has been deprived of possession to exercise the right to self-explosion by acquiring the established possession to harm legal stability and peace, or to abuse the right to self-explosion.”

[2] The case affirming the judgment below which found the defendant guilty on the ground that it does not constitute self-help under the Civil Act, in case where the execution officer's delivery execution of real estate against the defendant who claimed a right of retention in the apartment owned by the execution creditor Gap association Gap, and the defendant was indicted for the damage of property and invasion of a structure on the ground that he damaged the entrance door and locking device of the apartment, forced opening the apartment, forced entry into the apartment, and entered the apartment, the defendant was indicted for the damage of property and damages of the building

[1] Article 209(2) of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 319(1) and 366 of the Criminal Act, Article 209(2) of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 91Da14116 delivered on March 26, 1993 (Gong1993Sang, 1280)

Defendant

Defendant

Seoul Eastern District Court Decision 2016No2014 decided June 15, 2017

The appeal is dismissed.

The former part of Article 209(2) of the Civil Act provides that “If the possessor of an immovable has been deprived of possession thereof, the possessor may recover it by immediately eliminating the perpetrator after the deprivation.” Here, the term “defensive” refers to the right to self-refforcing real estate in his/her own right of self-help. Here, the term “defforcing” refers to the right to self-refforcing real estate in his/her own right of self-refforcing” (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da1416, Mar. 26, 1993). Whether the right to self-refforcing was exercised should be determined by examining not only the physical length, but also whether allowing the person who has been deprived of possession to exercise the right to self-refforcing real estate by acquiring the established possession to the extent that it would prejudice legal stability and peace or abuse the right to self-refforcing.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found the defendant's act of withdrawing possession by real force does not constitute self-help under the Civil Act and convicted all the charges of this case on the ground that the defendant's act of withdrawing possession does not constitute self-help under the Civil Act, since it is difficult to see that the execution creditor already received the apartment from the execution officer at the time of entering the apartment and then the entrance locking device is replaced, etc., and the possession

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is acceptable, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles on self-help, etc. under the Civil Act, or by exceeding the bounds of

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

Justices Jo Hee-de (Presiding Justice)