Open Decision Ledger · Criminal law
Demolition payment claim cannot secure a lien on the land
Supreme Court, May 28, 2020, 2020Do3170 (judgment)
No holding summary · checked against points at issue. The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Case name: 업무방해
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
If Article 320(1) of the Civil Act requires the secured claim of a lien to be a claim that arose out of the thing possessed, does the offence of obstruction of business lie against a defendant who occupied the land and interfered by force with an office-tel construction site in reliance on a lien secured by a building demolition payment claim?
Holding
No. Under Article 320(1) of the Civil Act the secured claim must be a claim that arose out of the thing possessed, and the demolition payment claim that C took under its contract with Company B arose out of that contract and not out of the land itself. It therefore could not secure a lien on the land, so C was not a legitimate lienholder, and the appellate judgment which took the opposite view misapprehended the law on the lien and the offence of obstruction of business.
Points at issue, verbatim
병이 유치권의 피담보채권으로 내세우는 위 공사대금채권은 토지 자체에 관하여 생긴 것이 아니어서 이를 피담보채권으로 하여 토지에 대한 유치권을 주장할 수는 없으므로 토지에 대한 정당한 유치권자라고 보기 어렵다는 이유로
Unofficial English translation
since the above claim to construction payments, which C asserts as the secured claim of the lien, did not arise in connection with the land itself, C cannot assert a lien on the land by making it the secured claim, and therefore C cannot be regarded as a rightful holder of a lien on the land
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 인천지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Incheon District Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
유치권의 피담보채권은 ‘그 물건에 관하여 생긴 채권’이어야 한다
Unofficial English translation
the secured claim of a lien must be 'a claim that has arisen in connection with the thing'
Factors
- 토지 소유자 갑은 을 주식회사와 토지의 지상건물을 철거하고 그곳에 오피스텔을 신축하기로 하였고
- 병은 을 회사와 건물철거 공사계약을 체결하고 지상건물을 철거한 뒤 그에 따른 공사대금채권을 취득한 자로서
- 위 공사대금채권은 토지 자체에 관하여 생긴 것이 아니어서
- 컨테이너를 설치하고 공사현장을 둘러싼 울타리에 빨간색 스프레이 페인트로 ‘유치권 행사 중’이라고 표시하며 승용차를 출입구에 세워 두는 등의 방법으로 위력으로써 갑의 업무를 방해하였다는
Unofficial English translation
• the landowner A agreed with B Corporation to demolish the building on the land and to newly construct an officetel there, and
• C, having entered into a building demolition construction contract with the B company and demolished the building on the land, thereafter acquired the claim to construction payments arising therefrom, and
• the above claim to construction payments did not arise in connection with the land itself, and therefore
• by installing a container, marking 'Lien being exercised' in red spray paint on the fence surrounding the construction site, and parking a passenger car at the entrance, among other means, interfered with the business of A by force, and
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2012. 1. 26. 선고 2011다96208 판결(공2012상, 312), 대법원 2013. 10. 24. 선고 2011다44788 판결
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2011Da96208 decided January 26, 2012 (Gong 2012 Sang, 312), Supreme Court Decision 2011Da44788 decided October 24, 2013
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2012. 1. 26. 선고 2011다96208 판결(공2012상, 312), 대법원 2013. 10. 24. 선고 2011다44788 판결
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
If a demolition contractor asserts a lien over the demolished building or over the materials in its possession rather than over the land, could its payment claim be a claim that arose out of that thing?
The retrial judgment of the Incheon District Court on whether the defendant's acts constituted obstruction of business will show how far an unlawful lien bears on the offence. Any change to the rule in Supreme Court Decision 2011Da96208 or an amendment to Article 320(1) of the Civil Act would require this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
6 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 6 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 4 (form of the test), axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 4 (Form of the test): Primary “Elements stated” vs Independent “Existing test applied”
Both readings record that the judgment does not address the burden of proof, so the difference lies in the framing of the reasoning, not in the stated allocation.
위 공사대금채권은 토지 자체에 관하여 생긴 것이 아니어서 이를 피담보채권으로 하여 토지에 대한 유치권을 주장할 수는 없으므로Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “If a demolition contractor asserts a lien over the demolished building or over the materials in its possession rather than over the land, could its payment claim be a claim that arose out of that thing?” vs Independent “On remand, will the remaining requirements for the defendant's criminal liability for obstruction of business be established?”
The primary asks whether a lien over demolished building materials could satisfy the requirement, while the independent reading asks whether the remaining elements of obstruction will be found on remand.
병이 유치권의 피담보채권으로 내세우는 위 공사대금채권은 토지 자체에 관하여 생긴 것이 아니어서 이를 피담보채권으로 하여 토지에 대한 유치권을 주장할 수는 없으므로 토지에 대한 정당한 유치권자라고 보기 어렵다는 이유로Raw 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 Incheon District Court, sitting on appeal, in its judgment of 6 February 2020 (2019No2458), held that C placed the container and did the other acts to exercise a lien, so that his conduct was a legitimate exercise of a right, and that the defendant could be seen to have exercised C's lien together with him or on his behalf. It therefore found that the defendant had not obstructed the legitimate business of A, the owner of the land, and acquitted him for failure to prove the charge.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the secured claim must be a claim that arose out of the thing, and that the demolition payment claim C held under its contract with Company B had not arisen out of the land itself, so C could not assert a lien on the land and was not a legitimate lienholder. It held that the appellate judgment, which acquitted all charges on the premise that C's exercise of the lien was legitimate, misapprehended the law on the lien and the offence of obstruction of business, and it reversed the whole judgment and remanded the case to the Incheon District Court on the unanimous view of the participating Justices.
Distinguishing conditions
- A payment claim that did arise out of the land itself, so that it can be the secured claim of a lien on that land.
- An obstruction charge with no acts of force on the site, such as installing a container, spray-painting the fence or parking a car at the entrance.
- An appellate judgment that does not premise its acquittal on the legitimacy of the lien, since the reversal here rests on the error in that premise.
Record verification notes
Ask first whose payment claim is asserted, since the Court tested the claim of C, the demolition subcontractor, and not that of Company B. Then check whether the acquittal rested wholly on the legitimacy of the lien, because the Supreme Court did not decide whether the acts amounted to obstruction and left that for retrial. Set the record dates against each other: Company B wrote a waiver of lien on 15 November 2017 promising KRW 86 million in additional construction cost, removed its container on 19 November 2017, and the acts charged occurred on 20 November and 8 December 2017.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 유치권의 피담보채권은 타인의 ‘물건에 관하여 생긴 채권’이어야 하는지 여부(적극) [2] 토지 소유자 갑은 을 주식회사와 토지의 지상건물을 철거하고 그곳에 오피스텔을 신축하기로 하였고, 을 회사는 병에게 건물철거 부분을 도급하였는데, 갑과 을 회사 사이에 공사 진행 관련 합의가 이루어지지 않자 을 회사와 병, 피고인 등은 철거공사 관련 공사대금을 지급받지 못하였다는 이유로 유치권을 주장하면서 토지를 점유한 채 신축공사 현장에 컨테이너를 설치하고 공사현장을 둘러싼 울타리에 빨간색 스프레이 페인트로 ‘유치권 행사 중’이라고 표시하며 승용차를 출입구에 세워 두는 등의 방법으로 위력으로써 갑의 업무를 방해하였다는 내용으로 기소된 사안에서, 병은 을 회사와 건물철거 공사계약을 체결하고 지상건물을 철거한 뒤 그에 따른 공사대금채권을 취득한 자로서, 병이 유치권의 피담보채권으로 내세우는 위 공사대금채권은 토지 자체에 관하여 생긴 것이 아니어서 이를 피담보채권으로 하여 토지에 대한 유치권을 주장할 수는 없으므로 토지에 대한 정당한 유치권자라고 보기 어렵다는 이유로, 이와 달리 보아 피고인에게 무죄를 선고한 원심판결에 법리오해의 위법이 있다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] Whether the secured claim of a lien must be a claim 'that has arisen in connection with the thing of another person' (affirmative) [2] In a case where the landowner A agreed with B Corporation to demolish the building on the land and to newly construct an officetel there, and the B company contracted the building demolition portion to C, and, when no agreement was reached between A and the B company on matters relating to the progress of the construction work, C, the B company, Defendant 1 and others, claiming a lien on the ground that they had not been paid the construction payments relating to the demolition work, occupied the land and thereby interfered with the business of A by force, by installing a container at the new construction site, marking 'Lien being exercised' in red spray paint on the fence surrounding the construction site, and parking a passenger car at the entrance, among other means, C, having entered into a building demolition construction contract with the B company and demolished the building on the land, thereafter acquired the claim to construction payments arising therefrom, and since the above claim to construction payments, which C asserts as the secured claim of the lien, did not arise in connection with the land itself, C cannot assert a lien on the land by making it the secured claim, and therefore C cannot be regarded as a rightful holder of a lien on the land, and, on that ground, a case in which it was held that the judgment of the court below, which took a different view and pronounced Defendant 1 not guilty, was erroneous as a misapprehension of legal principles
Summary of the holding
The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 인천지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Incheon District Court.
Provisions referred to
[1] 민법 제320조 제1항 [2] 형법 제314조 제1항, 민법 제320조 제1항
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