Daejeon District Court (Image courtesy of Yonhap)
DAEJEON, Apr. 22 (Korea Bizwire) – A group of tenants who changed the door locks and re-entered their former apartments after failing to receive their security deposits were prosecuted for trespassing but were acquitted in both the first and second trials.
According to legal insiders, in 2019, 11 residents, including an individual referred to only as A (62), were evicted from a public rental housing complex in Sejong that was converted to privately owned units, as they did not meet the eligibility requirements at the time of the conversion.
After receiving eviction notices from the real estate rental company B, the tenants filed lawsuits seeking the return of their security deposits.
They either obtained final judgments in their favor or received recommendations for settlement agreements stipulating the refund of their deposits. However, company B failed to return the security deposits.
The former tenants demanded the door lock codes to re-enter their units, claiming they intended to reside there again.
When company B refused to provide the codes and posted “no trespassing” signs on the vacant units, the tenants replaced the door locks between late April and late May 2022, re-entering the apartments.
They were subsequently prosecuted for damaging property worth 270,000 won and trespassing.
In the first trial, the court acquitted the defendants of trespassing and property damage charges, stating, “Even though the rental period had ended under the Public Housing Special Act, the landlord-tenant relationship can be considered ongoing until the security deposit is returned. Given that the defendants suffered financial losses due to the prolonged non-refund of their deposits, their actions can be deemed justified.”
The prosecution appealed, citing misunderstanding of facts and misinterpretation of the law.
However, in a ruling on April 18, the Daejeon District Court’s Criminal Appeals Division 2-1 (Presiding Judge Park Sang-jun) dismissed the prosecution’s appeal, stating, “The tenants trusted the company and vacated their units without receiving their security deposits. The non-refund situation was prolonged due to the company’s restructuring process.”
The court questioned whether the company’s refusal to return the vacant properties upon the tenants’ requests could be justified.
M. H. Lee (mhlee@koreabizwire.com)
