Supreme Court: "Obstructing Enforcement Officer's Demolition Execution Is Not Interference with Redevelopment Association's Business"

Bailiffs as Independent Judicial Officers... Performing Unique Duties
Creditor's Enforcement Delegation Merely Means 'Application'
Reversing Guilty Verdicts in First and Second Trials

Supreme Court, Seocho-dong, Seoul.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the duties of a court enforcement officer carrying out compulsory execution are inherent to the officer and cannot be considered as tasks delegated by the creditor who requested the execution. Therefore, obstructing compulsory execution does not constitute the crime of obstructing business against the creditor.

In cases where physical force is used to block an enforcement officer's compulsory execution in a redevelopment zone, the crime of obstructing official duties against the enforcement officer may be established, but the crime of obstructing business against the redevelopment association cannot be established, according to the ruling.

On the 25th, according to the legal community, the Supreme Court's First Division (Presiding Justice No Tae-ak) overturned the original ruling that sentenced A and B to fines of 300,000 won each for obstruction of business and remanded the case to the Seoul Northern District Court.

The two were indicted for obstructing the business of the redevelopment association by blocking the entrance of a building with a vehicle or threatening with LPG gas cylinders when a court enforcement officer attempted compulsory execution in a redevelopment zone in Gireum-dong, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul, on May 23, 2018. At that time, the enforcement officer postponed the execution due to concerns about accidents.

The prosecution judged that they obstructed the 'legitimate relocation and demolition work' of the redevelopment association in the area.

The first and second trials found that since the enforcement officer carried out compulsory execution on behalf of the redevelopment association, the association's business was obstructed, and thus recognized the defendants guilty of obstruction of business, sentencing each to a fine of 300,000 won.

However, the Supreme Court's judgment differed.

First, the court held that although the term 'delegation' is used in laws related to compulsory execution, it should be viewed differently from the concept of delegation under civil law, which involves entrusting tasks.

The court stated, "An enforcement officer is an independent, sole judicial institution with reasonable discretion based on professional judgment regarding the specific content and methods of their duties, as stipulated in Article 2 of the Enforcement Officer Act."

It continued, "Therefore, even though the creditor's delegation to the enforcement officer is described as 'delegation' in Articles 16(3), 42(1), and 43 of the Civil Execution Act, this refers to an application for commencement of execution and cannot be regarded as general delegation under civil law."

The court concluded, "The compulsory execution in this case should be considered the enforcement officer's inherent duty rather than the business of the association that delegated the execution, unless there are special circumstances. Even if the defendants obstructed the enforcement officer's compulsory execution duties, there is insufficient evidence to regard this as directly obstructing the business of the creditor, the association in this case."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.