Open Decision Ledger · Civil obligations & remedies
Indirect possession surviving the end of the lease
Supreme Court, Aug. 14, 2019, 2019Da205329 (judgment)
Case name: 건물인도
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
May the possession required for a lien be indirect possession, and is the possession-mediated relationship severed when the lease that constituted it ends while the direct possessor keeps the property without returning it?
Holding
The possession needed for a lien may be either direct or indirect, so indirect possession suffices. Once the lease or other legal relation that constitutes the possession-mediated relationship ends, the indirect possessor's claim to recover the property from the direct possessor survives until the property is handed back. Where the direct possessor goes on holding the property without returning it, that claim is not extinguished and the possession-mediated relationship is not severed.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
간접점유를 인정하기 위해서는 간접점유자와 직접점유를 하는 자 사이에 일정한 법률관계, 즉 점유매개관계가 필요한데, 간접점유에서 점유매개관계를 이루는 임대차계약 등이 해지 등의 사유로 종료되더라도 직접점유자가 목적물을 반환하기 전까지는 간접점유자의 직접점유자에 대한 반환청구권이 소멸하지 않는다.
Unofficial English translation
In order to acknowledge indirect possession, a certain legal relationship, that is, a relationship of possession through another, is required between the indirect possessor and the person who possesses directly; and even if the lease agreement or the like constituting the relationship of possession through another in the indirect possession is terminated for a reason such as termination, the indirect possessor's claim for return against the direct possessor does not extinguish until the direct possessor returns the object.
Disposition
Partly reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결 중 피고 31에 대한 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다. 원고의 상고를 모두 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The portion of the judgment of the court below concerning Defendant 31 is reversed, and this portion of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. All appeals of the plaintiff are dismissed.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
간접점유를 인정하기 위해서는 간접점유자와 직접점유를 하는 자 사이에 일정한 법률관계, 즉 점유매개관계가 필요한데
Unofficial English translation
In order to acknowledge indirect possession, a certain legal relationship, that is, a relationship of possession through another, is required between the indirect possessor and the person who possesses directly
Factors
- 유치권의 성립요건인 유치권자의 점유는 직접점유이든 간접점유이든 관계없다
- 간접점유자와 직접점유를 하는 자 사이에 일정한 법률관계, 즉 점유매개관계가 필요한데
- 직접점유자가 목적물을 반환하기 전까지는 간접점유자의 직접점유자에 대한 반환청구권이 소멸하지 않는다
- 직접점유자가 목적물을 점유한 채 이를 반환하지 않고 있는 경우에는
- 간접점유자의 반환청구권이 소멸한 것이 아니므로
Unofficial English translation
• The possession of the lienholder, which is a requirement for the establishment of a lien, is irrelevant as to whether it is direct possession or indirect possession
• a certain legal relationship, that is, a relationship of possession through another, is required between the indirect possessor and the person who possesses directly
• until the direct possessor returns the object, the indirect possessor's claim for return against the direct possessor does not extinguish
• where the direct possessor continues to possess the object and does not return it,
• as the indirect possessor's claim for return has not extinguished,
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2002. 11. 27.자 2002마3516 결정(공2003상, 220)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2002Ma3516 decided November 27, 2002 (Gong 2003 Sang, 220)
Decisions referred to
대법원 2002. 11. 27.자 2002마3516 결정(공2003상, 220)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Once the direct possessor keeps holding the property for a long time after a final delivery judgment, could his possession be treated as adverse ownership that eventually extinguishes the indirect possessor's return claim?
The remand judgment of the Seoul High Court on Defendant 31 will show how the surviving return claim is treated in practice, and may also address whether long continued possession after a final delivery judgment can become possession as one's own. Any amendment to Article 194 or Article 320 of the Civil Act, or a later Supreme Court decision on when a possession-mediated relationship ends, would require this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 7 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “Once the direct possessor keeps holding the property for a long time after a final delivery judgment, could his possession be treated as adverse ownership that eventually extinguishes the indirect possessor's return claim?” vs Independent “What effect would the direct possessor's express repudiation of the possession-mediating relationship have on the lien?”
The primary reading asks whether long possession after a final delivery judgment could become adverse possession that extinguishes the return claim. The independent reading asks what effect express repudiation of the possession-mediating relationship has on the lien.
간접점유를 인정하기 위해서는 간접점유자와 직접점유를 하는 자 사이에 일정한 법률관계, 즉 점유매개관계가 필요한데, 간접점유에서 점유매개관계를 이루는 임대차계약 등이 해지 등의 사유로 종료되더라도 직접점유자가 목적물을 반환하기 전까지는 간접점유자의 직접점유자에 대한 반환청구권이 소멸하지 않는다.Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Seoul High Court, in its judgment of 20 December 2018 (2016Na2085102), held that the possession-mediated relationship between the participant as lienholder and Defendant 31 ended when the participant gave notice terminating the lease for arrears of rent, so that the participant lost its indirect possession of unit 104. On the plaintiff's other grounds it found that the participant occupied units 403 and 503 through Defendants 10, 11, 15 and 16, that it had not used or lent the property beyond what its preservation required without the owner's permission, and that, since it had acted within the permission given by the former owner, it had not breached the duty not to use the retained property under Article 324(2) of the Civil Act merely by failing to obtain a fresh permission from the new owner.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the trial court had misapprehended the law on the possession-mediated relationship. Terminating the lease does not of itself sever it: the participant's claim to recover unit 104 from Defendant 31 survived, because Defendant 31 had gone on living in the unit and kept it until the close of oral argument below, despite the judgment of 4 December 2014 pronounced by default in the participant's favour, which became final around that time. It therefore reversed the part of the judgment concerning Defendant 31 and remanded that part to the Seoul High Court, and it dismissed all of the plaintiff's appeals, finding no error in the trial court's holdings on the other grounds.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which the direct possessor has handed the property back, so that the indirect possessor's claim to recover it is extinguished.
- A case in which no lease or other legal relation ever existed between the indirect possessor and the direct possessor, so that no possession-mediated relationship arose at all.
- A case in which the pledgee held no claim to recover the property from the person in actual occupation, since the Court relied on the survival of that claim.
Record verification notes
Separate the termination of the lease from the actual return of the property: record when the lease ended, when the delivery judgment was pronounced and when it became final, and whether the direct possessor still held the unit at the close of oral argument, since the claim survives until the direct possessor returns the property. Then confirm that the possession said to be pledged is the indirect possession resting on that claim, and check that the findings on the other defendants' direct possession, on use beyond preservation, and on Article 324(2) of the Civil Act are not disturbed by this rule.
From the official text
Points at issue
유치권의 성립요건인 유치권자의 점유에 간접점유가 포함되는지 여부(적극) 및 간접점유에서 점유매개관계를 이루는 임대차계약 등이 종료된 이후에도 직접점유자가 목적물을 점유한 채 이를 반환하지 않고 있는 경우, 점유매개관계가 단절되는지 여부(소극)
Unofficial English translation
Whether the possession of the lienholder, which is a requirement for the establishment of a lien, includes indirect possession (affirmative), and whether the relationship of possession through another is severed where, after the lease agreement or the like constituting the relationship of possession through another in the indirect possession has terminated, the direct possessor continues to possess the object and does not return it (negative)
Summary of the holding
유치권의 성립요건인 유치권자의 점유는 직접점유이든 간접점유이든 관계없다. 간접점유를 인정하기 위해서는 간접점유자와 직접점유를 하는 자 사이에 일정한 법률관계, 즉 점유매개관계가 필요한데, 간접점유에서 점유매개관계를 이루는 임대차계약 등이 해지 등의 사유로 종료되더라도 직접점유자가 목적물을 반환하기 전까지는 간접점유자의 직접점유자에 대한 반환청구권이 소멸하지 않는다. 따라서 점유매개관계를 이루는 임대차계약 등이 종료된 이후에도 직접점유자가 목적물을 점유한 채 이를 반환하지 않고 있는 경우에는, 간접점유자의 반환청구권이 소멸한 것이 아니므로 간접점유의 점유매개관계가 단절된다고 할 수 없다.
Order
원심판결 중 피고 31에 대한 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다. 원고의 상고를 모두 기각한다. 원고와 피고 31을 제외한 나머지 피고들 사이에 생긴 상고비용은 원고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The portion of the judgment of the court below concerning Defendant 31 is reversed, and this portion of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. All appeals of the plaintiff are dismissed. The costs of the final appeal incurred between the plaintiff and the remaining defendants other than Defendant 31 shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Provisions referred to
민법 제194조, 제320조
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger