The Supreme Court has ruled that even if there were legal violations during the real estate delivery enforcement process, the enforcement is still valid once completed, and anyone who enters the property afterward can be punished for trespassing.
According to the legal community on August 25, the Supreme Court's Second Division (Presiding Justice Eom Sangpil) upheld the lower court's decision, which sentenced Mr. A to 10 months in prison with a two-year suspended sentence on charges of interfering with the effectiveness of compulsory enforcement of real estate.
Mr. B, the father, filed a lawsuit for delivery of his own house in Chungcheong Province, claiming that his daughter, Ms. C, was occupying it without permission, and won the case in February 2020. Subsequently, compulsory enforcement was carried out on June 17, 2021, and the property was delivered. Six hours after the enforcement was completed, Mr. A entered the house and was indicted for interfering with the effectiveness of compulsory enforcement of real estate.
Mr. A argued that since he had jointly occupied the house with his younger sister, Ms. C, the court's compulsory enforcement order targeting only Ms. C was unlawful, and therefore, he should not be found guilty of interfering with the effectiveness of compulsory enforcement of real estate.
Both the first and second trials found Mr. A guilty and sentenced him to 10 months in prison with a two-year suspended sentence. While they acknowledged that the delivery enforcement regarding Mr. A's share was unlawful, they determined that since the enforcement had already been completed and possession had been transferred to the father, Mr. A's actions constituted interference with the effectiveness of the enforcement.
The Supreme Court also found no error in the lower court’s judgment and dismissed the appeal. The court stated, "Even if there were some improper aspects during the enforcement process, it is not permissible to deny the validity of the entire enforcement and revert to the pre-enforcement state," adding, "Even when possession is acquired through the enforcement of an unlawful delivery order, possession should be protected unless there are special circumstances."
© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.
