The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Although the Defendant’s act in the grounds of appeal does not fall under the withdrawal of possession under Article 209(2) of the Civil Act and the justifiable act under Article 20 of the Criminal Act, the lower court acquitted the Defendant by misapprehending the facts

2. Determination

A. 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 from his/her own right to recover the immovable property from his/her own right to recover from one’s own right to recover from one’s own right to recover from one’s own right of self-help.”

In this context, the term “time” refers to “as soon as objectively possible” or “as soon as possible to the extent 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 self-return was carried out “time” ought to be determined by examining not only the physical length, but also whether allowing the exercise of the right to self-return by acquiring the established possession of the victim to the extent that it would compromise legal stability and peace, or undermine the abuse of the right to self-return.

(Supreme Court Decision 2017Do999 Decided September 7, 2017). (B)

The following facts are acknowledged according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in the process of factual relations and related cases, the witness C and the J's respective legal statements, and the defendant's partial legal statements.

(1) On January 16, 2018, the complainant (successful bidder: Limited Company E) was awarded a successful bid for the previous North Korean Office B site, etc. (hereinafter “instant land”) in the Jeonju District Court K real estate auction case.

(2) The Defendant (the claimant of the right of retention: the D representative director of a limited company) filed an application for provisional disposition against obstruction of obstruction (right of retention) with the Jeonju District Court Decision 2018Kahap2016, asserting that he did not receive approximately KRW 600 million of the construction cost of road package in relation to the development of the instant land from L, and the said court filed the Defendant on August 30, 2018.