Court Rules "Legitimate Act"... Acquitted of Trespassing Charges
Tenants who changed the door locks of the entrance after not receiving their rental deposit and re-entered the house were acquitted in both the first and second trials. The court ruled this as a justifiable act.
According to the legal community on the 20th, Mr. A (62) and 10 others rented a public rental housing unit in Sejong City that was subject to conversion to sale, but around 2019, they were notified of contract termination because they did not meet the eligibility requirements at the time of the apartment sale conversion.
After vacating the apartment, they filed a lawsuit against real estate rental company B for the return of the deposit, winning a final judgment or receiving a settlement recommendation decision for the return of the deposit.
However, company B did not return the deposit and refused the tenants' request to move back into the unit. They even posted a notice prohibiting entry to the vacant unit.
In response, Mr. A and others replaced the apartment entrance door locks and entered the house between late April and late May 2022, and were prosecuted by the prosecution for trespassing and property damage worth approximately 270,000 won.
However, the first trial court acquitted them. The court stated, “Under the Public Housing Special Act, even after the lease period ends, the lease relationship can be considered to continue until the tenant receives the deposit back,” and “Considering that the defendants suffered financial damage due to not receiving the deposit for a long time, this constitutes a justifiable act,” thus acquitting them.
The prosecutor appealed on grounds of factual error and legal misinterpretation, but the second trial court also dismissed the appeal and acquitted them.
The 2nd Criminal Appeal Division 2-1 of the Daejeon District Court (Chief Judge Park Sang-jun), which handled the second trial, stated on the 18th, “The tenants trusted the company and vacated without receiving the rental deposit, but due to a series of events such as the company’s rehabilitation process and the bank’s notification of bankruptcy, the non-return of the deposit was prolonged,” adding, “It is questionable whether company B’s refusal to return the vacant property, which was empty, can be justified.”
© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.
