Manager Entering Office-tel with Overdue Rent Faces Trespassing Trial [Seocho-dong Legal Story]

Court: "Entering and removing belongings is not unjust"

"The defendant merely removed belongings from an abandoned officetel and stored them in a warehouse, and it cannot be considered that the victim's 'peace of residence' was disturbed."

This is the plea from Ms. A (49, female), a manager who entered an officetel where no rent had been paid for months to clear out belongings and is now facing a criminal trial.

[Image source=Yonhap News]

Ms. A worked as a management staff member at an officetel in Gangnam-gu, Seoul, collecting monthly rent from tenants on behalf of the landlord. On April 7, 2021, she used a spare key to enter a unit on the 10th floor where tenant Mr. B was living and cleared out belongings. At that time, Mr. B had not paid rent for eight months.

Mr. B was not the contracted tenant of the officetel. Originally, Mr. B's acquaintance Mr. C had signed a lease at the end of 2019 with a deposit of 2 million won and monthly rent of 1.78 million won, renewing the lease every three months.

Mr. B lived with Mr. C for about a month and a half, and from early 2020, Mr. C moved out and Mr. B began living alone there. Although Mr. B paid the rent, the lease was still under Mr. C's name.

However, from September of that year, Mr. B stopped paying rent. He left the officetel with his belongings still inside and stayed elsewhere.

From October 2020 to February 2021, Ms. A continuously sent text messages to Mr. B demanding payment of the overdue rent, but Mr. B did not respond. Eventually, Ms. A sent a text message to the registered tenant Mr. C stating, "If the unpaid rent is not paid, we will not leave the officetel unattended," and Mr. C replied, "I cannot contact Mr. B either, so I cannot do anything," asking Ms. A to "organize the officetel."

Ultimately, Ms. A cleared out the belongings from the officetel in April of that year, and Mr. B returned to the officetel at the end of September 2021, five months later. Mr. B reported to the police that "luxury shoes including Hermes, Louis Vuitton, Gucci totaling 40 pairs, over 50 luxury clothing items, and IOUs worth about 40 million won disappeared," claiming "someone entered without permission, cleared out my belongings, and sold them."

The prosecution indicted Ms. A on charges of trespassing and property damage.

In court, Ms. A pleaded, "I did enter the officetel, but Mr. B had no legal possessory rights at the time. There was no intent to 'trespass'." She also denied taking the luxury clothes and shoes that Mr. B and the prosecution claimed.

According to the legal community on the 8th, Judge Park Byung-gon of the Criminal Division 5 at Seoul Central District Court recently acquitted Ms. A, stating, "The evidence presented by the prosecution does not conclusively prove that the defendant had the intent to trespass or damage property."

The court noted, "Although the contract holder was someone else, Mr. B was the one using the officetel and paying the rent. Mr. B stopped paying rent from September 2020 and left the officetel a month later to live elsewhere. Records show Mr. B neither returned to the officetel nor contacted Ms. A until the day of the incident."

Furthermore, the court stated, "Compared to the deposit, the monthly rent for this officetel is high, and it is often used for 'ultra-short-term leases' of three months, with tenants frequently moving in and out freely. Considering these circumstances, the defendant could have reasonably believed Mr. B had already vacated, and entering to clear out belongings was neither unusual nor improper."

The prosecution has appealed, arguing that Ms. A should be found guilty.