{"id":1905,"date":"2026-08-22T08:09:18","date_gmt":"2026-08-22T08:09:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/holdover-tenant-unlawful-possession-landlord-self-help-south-korea\/"},"modified":"2026-08-22T08:10:28","modified_gmt":"2026-08-22T08:10:28","slug":"holdover-tenant-unlawful-possession-landlord-self-help-south-korea","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/holdover-tenant-unlawful-possession-landlord-self-help-south-korea\/","title":{"rendered":"Holdover Tenant and Landlord Self-Help in South Korea"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><!-- ATLAS_HREFLANG_START -->\n<link rel=\"alternate\" hreflang=\"ko\" href=\"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/kr-blog\/lease-termination-illegal-possession-lockout-kr\/\" \/>\n<link rel=\"alternate\" hreflang=\"en\" href=\"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/holdover-tenant-unlawful-possession-landlord-self-help-south-korea\/\" \/>\n<link rel=\"alternate\" hreflang=\"x-default\" href=\"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/kr-blog\/lease-termination-illegal-possession-lockout-kr\/\" \/>\n<!-- ATLAS_HREFLANG_END --><\/p>\n<p><!-- ATLAS_SEO_BLOCK_START --><br \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/holdover-tenant-unlawful-possession-landlord-self-help-south-korea\/#article\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/holdover-tenant-unlawful-possession-landlord-self-help-south-korea\/#webpage\"},\"headline\":\"When Does a Holdover Tenant's Possession Become Unlawful in South Korea \u2014 and When Does a Landlord's Power Cut Become a Crime?\",\"description\":\"The Supreme Court of Korea holds that once a security deposit is fully absorbed by accrued rent, the tenant loses the defense of simultaneous performance and possession from that point constitutes a tort committed at least negligently (2022Da228667). Conversely, a landlord who cuts utilities or changes the door lock code faces obstruction of business, obstruction of the exercise of rights, and intrusion upon habitation \u2014 and may forfeit rent for the period of the cut-off.\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-08-22T09:00:00+09:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-08-22T09:00:00+09:00\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"author\":{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/soyoung-park\/#person\",\"name\":\"Soyoung Park\",\"alternateName\":\"\ubc15\uc18c\uc601\",\"jobTitle\":\"Representative Attorney\",\"worksFor\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/#legalservice\"}},\"publisher\":{\"@type\":\"LegalService\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/#legalservice\",\"name\":\"Atlas Legal\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\"},\"about\":[\"Holdover possession and the defense of simultaneous performance in South Korea\",\"Exhaustion of the security deposit and loss of the defense of simultaneous performance\",\"Possession versus use and profit in Korean unjust enrichment law\",\"Contractual rent rather than market rent after lease termination in South Korea\",\"Landlord utility cut-offs and obstruction of business under the Korean Criminal Act\",\"Changing a door lock code and obstruction of the exercise of rights (Article 323)\",\"Self-help entry and intrusion upon habitation in South Korea\",\"Supreme Court of Korea 2022Da228667\",\"Supreme Court of Korea 2023Da257600\",\"Supreme Court of Korea 2006Do9157\",\"Supreme Court of Korea 2006Do7044\",\"Supreme Court of Korea 2004Da3598\",\"Suwon District Court 2020No6480\",\"Seoul Southern District Court 2025No365\"]}<\/script><br \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@type\":\"FAQPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/holdover-tenant-unlawful-possession-landlord-self-help-south-korea\/#faqpage\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"mainEntity\":[{\"@type\":\"Question\",\"name\":\"If the lease has ended and the tenant will not leave, is that immediately unlawful possession?\",\"acceptedAnswer\":{\"@type\":\"Answer\",\"text\":\"No. The tenant's duty to return the premises and the landlord's duty to return the deposit stand in a relationship of simultaneous performance, so unless the landlord asserts and proves that it returned the deposit or made an actual tender causing the tenant to lose that defense, the tenant's possession is not unlawful possession (Supreme Court of Korea, May 29, 1998, 98Da6497). A clause requiring twice the rent for delayed surrender presupposes unlawful possession and therefore does not apply (Supreme Court of Korea, July 25, 1995, 95Da14664, 14671).\"}},{\"@type\":\"Question\",\"name\":\"If the tenant left only belongings behind and did not actually live there, is rent still owed?\",\"acceptedAnswer\":{\"@type\":\"Answer\",\"text\":\"In principle no. \\\"Benefit\\\" in unjust enrichment means substantive benefit, so if the tenant continued to hold possession but did not use and profit from the premises in accordance with the purpose of the lease and thus obtained no substantive benefit, no obligation to return unjust enrichment arises \u2014 and this is so even if the tenant did not remove its fixtures (Supreme Court of Korea, July 10, 1998, 98Da8554). The same result followed where a tenant filed a business closure report and left the fittings in place (Supreme Court of Korea, November 29, 2018, 2018Da240424, 240431). The reasoning does not transfer where a residential tenant simply keeps living there.\"}},{\"@type\":\"Question\",\"name\":\"If the tenant kept living there after the lease ended, must the tenant pay current market rent?\",\"acceptedAnswer\":{\"@type\":\"Answer\",\"text\":\"No. The Supreme Court of Korea held that a tenant who continues to occupy and to use and profit from the premises until the deposit is returned bears only the obligation to pay the rent stipulated in the previous lease agreement, and not unjust enrichment corresponding to market rent (Supreme Court of Korea, November 9, 2023, 2023Da257600). That judgment concerns Article 9(2) of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act, but Article 4(2) of the Housing Lease Protection Act uses effectively identical language, which supports the same conclusion for residential leases.\"}},{\"@type\":\"Question\",\"name\":\"When, then, does the tenant's possession become unlawful?\",\"acceptedAnswer\":{\"@type\":\"Answer\",\"text\":\"From the time the deposit has been fully absorbed by rent and other deductions so that the defense of simultaneous performance is extinguished. The Supreme Court of Korea held that where the tenant has lost that defense yet continues to refuse to return the premises, then absent special circumstances establishing another lawful title, possession from the time the tenant could have known of that loss constitutes at the least negligent possession amounting to a tort (Supreme Court of Korea, June 13, 2024, 2022Da228667). The reference point is not the day the lease ended but the day the deposit reached zero.\"}},{\"@type\":\"Question\",\"name\":\"Who must prove when the deposit was exhausted?\",\"acceptedAnswer\":{\"@type\":\"Answer\",\"text\":\"The landlord. The Supreme Court of Korea held that the landlord bears the burden of assertion and proof as to the accrual of the claims for unjust enrichment and damages secured by the deposit, while the tenant bears that burden as to whether those claims were extinguished by payment or otherwise (Supreme Court of Korea, July 25, 1995, 95Da14664, 14671). The month in which arrears began must therefore be identifiable from bank records, and a single month can change the outcome.\"}},{\"@type\":\"Question\",\"name\":\"May a landlord cut off the electricity if the tenant refuses to leave?\",\"acceptedAnswer\":{\"@type\":\"Answer\",\"text\":\"As a rule, no. In a commercial case, however, the Supreme Court of Korea found room to treat a cut-off as a justifiable act under Article 20 of the Criminal Act where the lease term had already expired, the deposit had been entirely extinguished by arrears, and the landlord had issued two formal demands and advance notice before a single cut-off. By contrast, where 7 to 9 months of the term remained and over KRW 70 million of the deposit was intact, and the landlord gave only a warning before cutting off twice, no justification was found (Supreme Court of Korea, September 20, 2007, 2006Do9157). A contractual cut-off clause alone does not confer immunity.\"}},{\"@type\":\"Question\",\"name\":\"What must be shown for a utility cut-off to qualify as a justifiable act?\",\"acceptedAnswer\":{\"@type\":\"Answer\",\"text\":\"All five requirements must be met: legitimacy of motive and purpose, reasonableness of means and method, balance between the interest protected and the interest infringed, urgency, and supplementarity in the sense that no other means was available (Supreme Court of Korea, April 27, 2006, 2005Do8074). In practice supplementarity is decisive, since it is difficult to establish that no other means existed while an eviction action remains available.\"}},{\"@type\":\"Question\",\"name\":\"Is cutting power to a residential tenant obstruction of business?\",\"acceptedAnswer\":{\"@type\":\"Answer\",\"text\":\"That charge is difficult to sustain. \\\"Business\\\" for this offense means work or an undertaking engaged in continuously on the basis of an occupation or a position in social life, and work carried out simply as part of ordinary personal daily life falls outside it (Supreme Court of Korea, November 9, 2017, 2014Do3270; Supreme Court of Korea, September 11, 2025, 2022Do1665). Ordinary residential life and household activities are hard to bring within that definition. If the tenant has been working from home or running a small business there, that portion may be assessed separately.\"}},{\"@type\":\"Question\",\"name\":\"If obstruction of business does not apply, does a residential landlord escape liability?\",\"acceptedAnswer\":{\"@type\":\"Answer\",\"text\":\"No. A landlord who destroys the door of a unit the tenant occupies, or who manipulates the door lock, commits obstruction of the exercise of rights under Article 323 of the Criminal Act. Because the door belongs to the landlord, criminal damage to property is not made out \u2014 but for that very reason the door is \\\"one's own property that is the object of another's right.\\\" Where a landlord destroyed an entrance door with a pickaxe, criminal damage was dismissed while obstruction of the exercise of rights and aggravated intrusion upon habitation were established, resulting in four months' imprisonment suspended for one year (Suwon District Court, August 19, 2021, 2020No6480).\"}},{\"@type\":\"Question\",\"name\":\"Is merely changing the door lock code a crime?\",\"acceptedAnswer\":{\"@type\":\"Answer\",\"text\":\"Yes. Where a lease had expired and the landlord had not returned the deposit, and the landlord arbitrarily changed the door lock code while the tenant was absent so that the tenant could not enter, the court found that the utility of the lock had been impaired, convicted the landlord of obstruction of the exercise of rights, and imposed a fine of KRW 700,000 (Seoul Southern District Court, September 11, 2025, 2025No365). The landlord's argument that the tenant could still enter with a key card was rejected.\"}},{\"@type\":\"Question\",\"name\":\"If the tenant is in unlawful possession, may the landlord open the door and enter?\",\"acceptedAnswer\":{\"@type\":\"Answer\",\"text\":\"No. Because the offense of intrusion upon habitation protects the de facto peace of the dwelling, whether the resident holds a right to reside does not determine the offense; the peace of the dwelling is protected even where the possession is that of a person without a right to possess, so the offense is established even where a rights-holder enters by way of self-help in the exercise of that right (Supreme Court of Korea, March 15, 2007, 2006Do7044).\"}},{\"@type\":\"Question\",\"name\":\"Must rent be paid for a period during which the power was cut off?\",\"acceptedAnswer\":{\"@type\":\"Answer\",\"text\":\"There is substantial room to contest it. The basis for charging an amount equivalent to rent is that the tenant actually used and profited from the premises, and if a cut-off made the premises unusable there was no such use during that period. The Supreme Court of Korea held that where a sectional owner could not use and profit from a building owing to an unlawful cut-off of utilities by the management entity, that owner does not bear the management fee obligations accruing during that period (Supreme Court of Korea, June 29, 2006, 2004Da3598, 3604). From the landlord's side, a cut-off may therefore undermine the landlord's own assertion that the deposit was exhausted.\"}},{\"@type\":\"Question\",\"name\":\"What lawful steps should a landlord take when a tenant will not leave?\",\"acceptedAnswer\":{\"@type\":\"Answer\",\"text\":\"Fix and record the date the deposit reached zero using bank records, notify the tenant of that fact and demand surrender by content-certified mail, and file an action for delivery of the building. Where the situation is urgent, a provisional disposition ordering surrender may be considered. Cutting off utilities, changing locks, or removing belongings invites criminal liability and also weakens the landlord's own claim for damages, and should be avoided.\"}}]}<\/script><br \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@type\":[\"LegalService\",\"LocalBusiness\"],\"@id\":\"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/#legalservice\",\"name\":\"Atlas Legal\",\"alternateName\":[\"\ubc95\ubb34\ubc95\uc778 \uc544\ud2c0\ub77c\uc2a4\",\"Atlas Law Firm\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en\/home-en\/\",\"telephone\":\"+82-32-864-8300\",\"email\":\"info@atlaw.kr\",\"priceRange\":\"$$$\",\"address\":{\"@type\":\"PostalAddress\",\"streetAddress\":\"B-2901, 323 Incheon Tower-daero\",\"addressLocality\":\"Yeonsu-gu, Incheon\",\"addressRegion\":\"Incheon Metropolitan City\",\"postalCode\":\"22007\",\"addressCountry\":\"KR\"},\"geo\":{\"@type\":\"GeoCoordinates\",\"latitude\":37.399438,\"longitude\":126.629812},\"openingHoursSpecification\":[{\"@type\":\"OpeningHoursSpecification\",\"dayOfWeek\":[\"Monday\",\"Tuesday\",\"Wednesday\",\"Thursday\",\"Friday\"],\"opens\":\"09:00\",\"closes\":\"18:00\"}],\"areaServed\":[{\"@type\":\"Country\",\"name\":\"South Korea\"},{\"@type\":\"Place\",\"name\":\"Songdo International Business District\"},{\"@type\":\"Place\",\"name\":\"Cheongna International City\"},{\"@type\":\"Place\",\"name\":\"Yeongjong International City\"},{\"@type\":\"Place\",\"name\":\"Incheon\"},{\"@type\":\"Place\",\"name\":\"Seoul Metropolitan Area\"},{\"@type\":\"Place\",\"name\":\"Incheon Free Economic Zone (IFEZ)\"}],\"knowsAbout\":[\"Residential and Commercial Lease Law in South Korea\",\"Housing Lease Protection Act of South Korea\",\"Commercial Building Lease Protection Act of South Korea\",\"Security Deposit Recovery and Eviction in South Korea\",\"Landlord Self-Help, Utility Cut-Offs and Criminal Liability in South Korea\",\"Construction and Real Estate Disputes in South Korea\",\"Incheon Free Economic Zone (IFEZ) Legal Services\"],\"serviceType\":[\"Residential and Commercial Lease Disputes\",\"Eviction and Delivery Actions\",\"Security Deposit Recovery\",\"Real Estate Litigation\",\"Criminal Defense and Complaints in Lease Disputes\"]}<\/script><br \/>\n<!-- ATLAS_SEO_BLOCK_END --><\/p>\n<style>@import url('https:\/\/cdn.jsdelivr.net\/gh\/orioncactus\/pretendard@v1.3.9\/dist\/web\/static\/pretendard.css'); \/* \u2500\u2500 Kadence \ud14c\ub9c8 \ucee8\ud150\uce20 \ud3ed override \u2500\u2500 *\/ :root { --global-content-narrow-width: 1290px !important; } .entry-content-wrap { max-width: 1290px !important; } .entry-content { margin-top: 0 !important; } *, *::before, *::after { box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0; padding: 0; } :root { --navy: #0a2540; --navy2: #1a3353; --wine: #722f37; --text: #1a1f36; --muted: #697386; --rule: #e3e8ee; } body { font-family: 'Pretendard', -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, 'Apple SD Gothic Neo', sans-serif; background: #fff; color: var(--text); font-size: 18px; line-height: 1.82; -webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; } \/* \u2500\u2500 \ud788\uc5b4\ub85c \u2500\u2500 *\/ .hero { max-width: 1000px; margin: 0 auto; padding: 72px 48px 48px; text-align: center; } .category-tag { font-size: 11px; font-weight: 700; letter-spacing: 1.5px; text-transform: uppercase; color: var(--wine); display: block; margin-bottom: 20px; } .hero h1 { font-size: 44px; font-weight: 700; line-height: 1.22; color: var(--navy); margin-bottom: 28px; word-break: keep-all; } \/* \ud788\uc5b4\ub85c \uc81c\ubaa9 \u2014 h1 \ub300\uc2e0 \uc0ac\uc6a9 (\ud14c\ub9c8 \uc790\ub3d9 h1\uacfc \uc911\ubcf5 \ubc29\uc9c0) *\/ .hero-title { font-size: 44px; font-weight: 700; line-height: 1.22; color: var(--navy); margin-bottom: 28px; word-break: keep-all; } .hero-meta { display: flex; align-items: center; justify-content: center; gap: 12px; padding-bottom: 40px; border-bottom: 1px solid var(--rule); } .hero-info { font-size: 13.5px; color: var(--text); line-height: 1.4; } .hero-info strong { color: var(--text); font-weight: 500; } \/* \u2500\u2500 \uc989\uc2dc \ub2f5\ubcc0 \ubc15\uc2a4 \u2500\u2500 *\/ .direct-answer { background: #f6f9fc; border-left: 4px solid var(--navy); border-radius: 0; padding: 20px 24px; margin: 32px 0 40px; font-size: 17px; line-height: 1.75; color: var(--text); } \/* \u2500\u2500 \ubcf8\ubb38 \u2500\u2500 *\/ .content { max-width: 1000px; margin: 0 auto; padding: 52px 48px 100px; } \/* \ubaa9\ucc28 *\/ .toc-nav { margin-bottom: 60px; border: 1px solid #d0d5dd; border-radius: 6px; padding: 28px 32px; } .toc-label { font-size: 20px; font-weight: 700; color: var(--navy); margin-bottom: 14px; } .toc-nav ol { list-style: none; padding-left: 0; } .toc-nav ol li { display: flex; gap: 14px; align-items: baseline; padding: 6px 0; font-size: 17px; } .toc-nav ol li::before { content: none; } .toc-nav ol li a { color: var(--text); text-decoration: none; font-weight: 400; } .toc-nav ol li a:hover { color: var(--wine); } \/* \ub9ac\ub4dc\u00b7\uc694\uc57d\u00b7\ucee8\ud14d\uc2a4\ud2b8 \ud14d\uc2a4\ud2b8 *\/ .lead-text { font-size: 20px; font-weight: 400; color: var(--text); line-height: 1.8; margin-bottom: 24px; } .summary-text { font-size: 18px; color: var(--text); line-height: 1.8; margin-bottom: 20px; } .context-text { font-size: 17px; color: var(--text); line-height: 1.8; margin-bottom: 52px; } \/* \u2500\u2500 \uc81c\ubaa9 \u2500\u2500 *\/ h2 { font-size: 30px; font-weight: 700; color: var(--wine); margin: 68px 0 16px; word-break: keep-all; } h3 { font-size: 17px; font-weight: 700; color: var(--wine); margin: 38px 0 10px; } p { font-size: 18px; color: var(--text); line-height: 1.82; margin-bottom: 18px; } \/* \ud45c *\/ table { width: 100%; border-collapse: collapse; margin: 24px 0; font-size: 14px; } thead tr { background: #fff; } th { color: var(--navy); font-weight: 600; padding: 11px 16px; text-align: left; font-size: 16px; border-bottom: 2px solid var(--navy); } td { padding: 12px 16px; border-bottom: 1px solid var(--rule); color: var(--text); font-size: 16px; } tbody tr:hover { background: #f6f9fc; } \/* \ubd88\ub9bf \ub9ac\uc2a4\ud2b8 *\/ ul, ol:not(.toc-nav ol) { padding-left: 20px; margin-bottom: 16px; } li { font-size: 18px; line-height: 1.78; margin-bottom: 6px; color: var(--text); } \/* \uacc4\uc0b0 \uacf5\uc2dd *\/ .formula { display: flex; align-items: center; gap: 8px; background: #f6f9fc; border: 1px solid var(--rule); border-radius: 8px; padding: 28px 24px; margin: 32px 0; flex-wrap: wrap; justify-content: center; } .f-item { text-align: center; padding: 12px 18px; background: #fff; border: 1px solid var(--rule); border-radius: 5px; } .f-result { background: #fff; border: 2px solid var(--navy); } .f-num { font-size: 22px; font-weight: 700; color: var(--navy); line-height: 1.2; } .f-result .f-num { color: var(--wine); } .f-label { font-size: 11px; color: var(--text); margin-top: 4px; } .f-op { font-size: 20px; color: var(--text); padding: 0 2px; font-weight: 300; } \/* FAQ *\/ .faq-item { border-top: 1px solid var(--rule); padding: 22px 0; } .faq-item:last-of-type { border-bottom: 1px solid var(--rule); } .faq-q { font-size: 17px; font-weight: 600; color: var(--navy); margin-bottom: 8px !important; } .faq-item p:not(.faq-q) { font-size: 17px; color: var(--text); margin: 0; line-height: 1.75; } \/* \ub9c8\ubb34\ub9ac \ubb38\uc7a5 *\/ p.closing { font-size: 15.5px; color: var(--text); margin: 40px 0 0; padding-top: 32px; border-top: 1px solid var(--rule); } \/* \uc800\uc790 \ubc15\uc2a4 *\/ .author-box { display: flex; align-items: center; gap: 14px; padding-top: 40px; margin-top: 40px; border-top: 1px solid var(--rule); } .author-avatar { width: 56px; height: 56px; border-radius: 50%; object-fit: cover; flex-shrink: 0; align-self: flex-start; } .author-text { flex: 1; } .author-name { font-size: 18px; font-weight: 600; color: var(--navy); } .author-meta { font-size: 13px; color: var(--text); margin-top: 2px; } .author-link { display: inline-block; margin-top: 8px; font-size: 15px; font-weight: 600; color: var(--wine); text-decoration: none; } .author-link:hover { text-decoration: underline; } .author-section-label { font-size: 15px; font-weight: 700; letter-spacing: 1px; text-transform: uppercase; color: var(--muted); margin-bottom: 8px; } .author-detail { font-size: 16px; color: var(--text); line-height: 1.7; margin-bottom: 1px; } @media (max-width: 640px) { body { font-size: 15px; } p { font-size: 15px; } li { font-size: 15px; } .hero { padding: 32px 14px 24px; } .hero h1 { font-size: 22px; } .hero-title { font-size: 22px; } .hero-info { font-size: 12px; } .content { padding: 28px 0 60px; } .toc-nav { margin-left: -14px; margin-right: -14px; border-radius: 0; border-left: none; border-right: none; padding: 12px 4px; margin-bottom: 28px; } .toc-label { font-size: 16px; } .toc-nav ol li { font-size: 14px; padding: 3px 0; } h2 { font-size: 20px; margin: 44px 0 10px; } h3 { font-size: 15px; margin: 24px 0 8px; } .lead-text { font-size: 16px; } .summary-text { font-size: 15px; } .context-text { font-size: 14px; } .formula { flex-direction: column; padding: 16px 12px; } .f-num { font-size: 18px; } th { font-size: 13px; padding: 8px 10px; } td { font-size: 13px; padding: 8px 10px; } .faq-q { font-size: 14px; } .faq-item p:not(.faq-q) { font-size: 14px; } .author-box { display: block; overflow: hidden; } .author-avatar { float: left; width: 36px; height: 36px; margin-right: 10px; border-radius: 50%; } .author-section-label { display: inline; font-size: 11px; letter-spacing: 0; margin: 0 3px 0 0; } .author-name { display: inline; font-size: 14px; } .author-detail { clear: both; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.55; margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 1px; } .author-detail ~ .author-detail { clear: none; margin-top: 2px; } .author-link { clear: both; display: block; font-size: 13px; margin-top: 8px; } p.closing { font-size: 14px; } }<\/style>\n<div class=\"hero\">\n  <span class=\"category-tag\">Lease &amp; Real Estate<\/span><\/p>\n<div class=\"hero-title\">The Tenant Will Not Leave<br \/>When Does Possession Turn Unlawful, and When Does the Landlord Commit a Crime?<\/div>\n<div class=\"hero-meta\">\n<div class=\"hero-info\">\n      <strong>Soyoung Park<\/strong> \u00b7 Representative Attorney, Atlas Legal<br \/>\n      Supreme Court of Korea, June 13, 2024, 2022Da228667 &nbsp;\u00b7&nbsp; Supreme Court of Korea, September 20, 2007, 2006Do9157\n    <\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"content\">\n<div class=\"direct-answer\">\n    <strong>Direct answer:<\/strong> Under South Korean law, a tenant&#8217;s possession does <strong>not<\/strong> become unlawful the moment the lease ends. Until the security deposit is returned, the tenant holds a defense of simultaneous performance. But once that deposit has been <strong>fully absorbed by accrued rent<\/strong>, the defense disappears, and possession from the time the tenant could have known of that loss constitutes <strong>a tort committed at least negligently<\/strong> (Supreme Court of Korea, June 13, 2024, 2022Da228667). The landlord&#8217;s side of the ledger is entirely separate. Cutting off electricity or changing the door lock code is not self-help the law permits: in commercial premises it is obstruction of business (Supreme Court of Korea, September 20, 2007, 2006Do9157), and in residential premises it is obstruction of the exercise of rights under Article 323 of the Criminal Act (Seoul Southern District Court, September 11, 2025, 2025No365). That a tenant is holding over unlawfully never means the landlord may evict by his own hand.\n  <\/div>\n<div class=\"toc-nav\">\n<p class=\"toc-label\">Contents<\/p>\n<ol>\n<li><a href=\"#sec-1\">1. The lease has ended and the tenant will not leave. Is that immediately unlawful possession?<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#sec-2\">2. How does merely holding possession differ from using and profiting from the premises?<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#sec-3\">3. If the tenant kept living there or kept trading, how much must the tenant pay?<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#sec-4\">4. So exactly when does possession become unlawful?<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#sec-5\">5. Who must prove when the deposit reached zero?<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#sec-6\">6. Does cutting off the electricity amount to obstruction of business?<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#sec-7\">7. Why is the answer different for residential premises?<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#sec-8\">8. Does that mean a residential landlord commits no offense at all?<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#sec-9\">9. What offense is committed simply by opening the door and walking in?<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#sec-10\">10. What comes back on a landlord who goes ahead with the power cut?<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#sec-11\">11. What should landlords and tenants each do?<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#sec-faq\">12. Frequently asked questions<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ol><\/div>\n<p class=\"lead-text\">The lease has ended. The tenant has not moved out. The security deposit has already been eaten away by unpaid rent. The landlord, out of patience, announces two things: &#8220;I am cutting the power.&#8221; &#8220;I am opening the door and removing your belongings.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p class=\"summary-text\">Two different clocks are running inside that short scene. One measures when the tenant&#8217;s possession turns unlawful. The other measures when the landlord&#8217;s conduct turns criminal. The two clocks do not show the same time.<\/p>\n<p class=\"context-text\">This is where practice most often goes wrong. The fact that a tenant is holding over unlawfully does <strong>not<\/strong> mean the landlord may remove the tenant personally. In June 2024 the Supreme Court of Korea settled when a tenant&#8217;s possession becomes a tort, and separately the Court has repeatedly addressed how far a landlord may go in cutting utilities or changing locks. Only when both axes are placed side by side does a usable answer emerge. For foreign companies and investors leasing space in the Incheon Free Economic Zone \u2014 Songdo International Business District, Cheongna International City, and Yeongjong International City \u2014 this distinction matters on both sides of the lease.<\/p>\n<p><\/p>\n<h2 id=\"sec-1\">The lease has ended and the tenant will not leave. Is that immediately unlawful possession?<\/h2>\n<p>No. When a lease ends, the tenant owes a duty to return the premises and the landlord owes a duty to return the security deposit (<em>imdaecha bojeunggeum<\/em>) after deducting unpaid rent. Those two duties stand in a relationship of <strong>simultaneous performance<\/strong>. Unless the landlord has returned the deposit or made a lawful tender of it, the tenant&#8217;s continued possession cannot be called unlawful possession.<\/p>\n<p>The Supreme Court of Korea has been explicit on this point for decades: &#8220;If, even after the lease agreement has terminated, the tenant has continued to occupy the leased building by exercising the defense of simultaneous performance, then unless the landlord asserts and proves that it performed the obligation to return the deposit, or made an actual tender of performance such that the tenant&#8217;s obligation to surrender the building fell into default and the defense of simultaneous performance was thereby lost, the tenant&#8217;s possession of the building cannot be regarded as unlawful possession, and accordingly the tenant bears no liability in damages for it.&#8221; (Supreme Court of Korea, May 29, 1998, 98Da6497)<\/p>\n<p>A liquidated damages clause does not change this. Many Korean leases provide that a tenant who delays surrender must pay twice the ordinary rent. Because such a clause presupposes unlawful possession, it has no room to operate while the possession remains lawful (Supreme Court of Korea, July 25, 1995, 95Da14664, 14671).<\/p>\n<p><\/p>\n<h2 id=\"sec-2\">How does merely holding possession differ from using and profiting from the premises?<\/h2>\n<p>A tenant who leaves belongings behind and keeps the door locked is in a different legal position from a tenant who keeps living or trading there. The reason is that &#8220;benefit&#8221; in unjust enrichment means <strong>actual, substantive benefit<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<p>The Supreme Court of Korea held: &#8220;Where, after the lease relationship has been extinguished, the tenant has continued to occupy the leased portion of the building but has not used and profited from it in accordance with the original purpose of the lease agreement and has therefore obtained no substantive benefit, the tenant&#8217;s obligation to return unjust enrichment does not arise, even if loss has been caused to the landlord; and this is so even where the tenant failed to use and profit from the premises for reasons attributable to the tenant, or failed to remove the tenant&#8217;s own fixtures.&#8221; (Supreme Court of Korea, July 10, 1998, 98Da8554)<\/p>\n<p>That case concerned a bowling alley: from the day after it closed, no unjust enrichment accrued. The same result followed where a tenant who had run a coffee shop <strong>filed a business closure report<\/strong> and then kept the premises with the fittings still in place. The Court held that after the closure report there was no use and profit in accordance with the purpose of the lease, hence no substantive benefit and no obligation to return unjust enrichment, and it reversed the lower court which had held otherwise (Supreme Court of Korea, November 29, 2018, 2018Da240424, 240431).<\/p>\n<p>One caveat matters. Every one of those cases involved a <strong>closure report, a suspension report, or a visible cessation of trading<\/strong> \u2014 that is, an objectively demonstrable end to use. Where a residential tenant simply keeps living in the apartment, the reasoning does not transfer, and an amount equivalent to rent continues to accrue month by month.<\/p>\n<p><\/p>\n<h2 id=\"sec-3\">If the tenant kept living there or kept trading, how much must the tenant pay?<\/h2>\n<p>This is widely misunderstood. Landlords often assume that once the lease is over they should recover current market rent. The Supreme Court of Korea says otherwise.<\/p>\n<p>The Court held: &#8220;Where a lease to which the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act applies has terminated by expiration of the term, by agreement of the parties, or by termination, a tenant who continues to occupy and to use and profit from the leased premises until the deposit is returned bears only the obligation to pay the rent stipulated in the previous lease agreement, and does not bear an obligation to pay unjust enrichment corresponding to rent at market value.&#8221; (Supreme Court of Korea, November 9, 2023, 2023Da257600)<\/p>\n<p>In that case the lower court had applied a market rent of KRW 13.06 million per month against a contractual rent of KRW 4.2 million, reasoning that the gap was too wide to ignore. The Supreme Court treated this as an error of law and reversed and remanded, because Article 9(2) of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act <strong>deems<\/strong> the lease relationship to continue until the deposit is returned.<\/p>\n<p>One point should be flagged for accuracy. That judgment concerns the <strong>Commercial Building Lease Protection Act<\/strong>. Article 4(2) of the Housing Lease Protection Act uses effectively identical language \u2014 &#8220;even after the lease term has ended, the lease relationship shall be deemed to continue until the tenant is returned the deposit&#8221; \u2014 which gives solid ground for the same conclusion in residential leases. Until the Supreme Court rules on a residential case, practitioners should proceed on that footing while recognizing that it is an analogy drawn from a commercial precedent.<\/p>\n<p><\/p>\n<h2 id=\"sec-4\">So exactly when does possession become unlawful?<\/h2>\n<p>This is the pivot of the whole analysis. Everything above concerns the period while the deposit still has a balance. But as the tenant continues to occupy and use the premises, amounts equivalent to rent accumulate and are deducted from the deposit, until at some point the <strong>deposit balance reaches zero<\/strong>. At that instant the defense of simultaneous performance disappears with it.<\/p>\n<p>In June 2024 the Supreme Court of Korea addressed that moment directly. The Court held: &#8220;However, if the tenant has thereafter lost that defense of simultaneous performance \u2014 whether through the landlord&#8217;s return of the security deposit or through deduction of the tenant&#8217;s obligations under the lease \u2014 and nevertheless continues to refuse to return the object while remaining in possession, then absent special circumstances establishing some other lawful title to possession, possession from the time the tenant could have known of the loss of the defense of simultaneous performance constitutes, at the least, negligent possession amounting to a tort.&#8221; (Supreme Court of Korea, June 13, 2024, 2022Da228667)<\/p>\n<p>The facts were these. A commercial tenant kept trading and refused to surrender the premises after the lease was terminated for rent arrears. At the moment of termination roughly KRW 9.03 million of the deposit remained, so the defense of simultaneous performance existed. The lower court reasoned that because the deposit still had a balance at termination, the possession that followed could not be unlawful either. The Supreme Court reversed: once the rent and other amounts that accrued through the tenant&#8217;s continued possession had <strong>fully consumed the deposit<\/strong>, the defense was lost, and from that point a tort arises.<\/p>\n<p>In other words, the tenant&#8217;s possession <strong>changes character at a single point in time<\/strong>. That point is not the day the lease ended; it is the day the deposit reached zero. For the landlord it is the date from which damages may be claimed. For the tenant it is the moment when holding out starts to carry a price.<\/p>\n<p><\/p>\n<h2 id=\"sec-5\">Who must prove when the deposit reached zero?<\/h2>\n<p>The landlord. A security deposit secures not only claims for unjust enrichment equivalent to rent arising after termination but also claims in damages for the cost of restoring damaged parts of the premises, so the landlord need return only the balance after deducting those secured obligations. But the <strong>existence of the claims to be deducted must be proved by the landlord<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<p>The Supreme Court of Korea held: &#8220;The landlord bears the burden of assertion and proof as to the accrual of the claims for return of unjust enrichment and for damages secured by that security deposit, while the tenant bears the burden of assertion and proof as to whether those accrued claims have been extinguished by payment or otherwise.&#8221; (Supreme Court of Korea, July 25, 1995, 95Da14664, 14671)<\/p>\n<p>In practice this is decisive. To assert that twelve months of arrears exhausted the deposit, the landlord must be able to <strong>pin down the month the arrears began, using bank records<\/strong>. A single month&#8217;s difference can determine whether any deposit balance remains, and with it the starting date of the damages claim itself.<\/p>\n<p><\/p>\n<h2 id=\"sec-6\">Does cutting off the electricity amount to obstruction of business?<\/h2>\n<p>Here the clock changes. That the tenant&#8217;s possession has become unlawful does not entitle the landlord to remove the tenant personally, because Korean law <strong>prohibits self-help as a matter of principle<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<p>On utility cuts, however, the Supreme Court of Korea left a nuanced ruling. The same landlord cut off power and water to two tenants in the same hotel; as to one, the Court found room to treat the act as a <strong>justifiable act warranting acquittal<\/strong>, and as to the other it found <strong>no justification<\/strong> (Supreme Court of Korea, September 20, 2007, 2006Do9157). The dividing lines were these.<\/p>\n<table>\n<thead>\n<tr>\n<th>Factor<\/th>\n<th>Room for justification<\/th>\n<th>No justification<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td>Lease term<\/td>\n<td>Already expired<\/td>\n<td>7 to 9 months still to run<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Security deposit<\/td>\n<td><strong>Entirely extinguished<\/strong> by deduction of arrears<\/td>\n<td>Over KRW 70 million <strong>still remaining<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Prior steps<\/td>\n<td>Two formal demands plus advance notice, then <strong>one<\/strong> cut-off<\/td>\n<td>Notice of termination and a warning only, then <strong>two<\/strong> cut-offs<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Outcome<\/td>\n<td>Sufficiently reasonable by social norms to fall within Article 20 of the Criminal Act<\/td>\n<td>Excessive infringement beyond any reasonable scope \u2014 obstruction of business<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<p>The lesson is not that a landlord always loses, but that a landlord loses <strong>unless three conditions are met: an expired term, a fully exhausted deposit, and adequate demand and advance notice<\/strong>. A contractual clause permitting a cut-off after two months of arrears is not enough on its own. The Court held that where a person in the business of leasing unilaterally cuts off utilities in reliance on a contract clause in order to compel performance, any belief that this is not a crime cannot, absent special circumstances, be regarded as reasonably held.<\/p>\n<p>The requirements of a justifiable act are settled. The Court held: &#8220;In order to recognize such a justifiable act, the following requirements must be satisfied: first, the legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the act; second, the reasonableness of the means or method of the act; third, the balance between the interest protected and the interest infringed; fourth, urgency; and fifth, supplementarity, in the sense that no other means or method was available.&#8221; (Supreme Court of Korea, April 27, 2006, 2005Do8074)<\/p>\n<p>In that case a landlord cut off power to an office sixteen days after the term ended, solely because a tenant who had never once fallen into arrears was slow to state a position on renewal and to surrender the premises; obstruction of business was made out. The fifth requirement, <strong>supplementarity<\/strong>, is the decisive one in practice. Where an eviction action is available, it is difficult to argue that no other means existed.<\/p>\n<p><\/p>\n<h2 id=\"sec-7\">Why is the answer different for residential premises?<\/h2>\n<p>Obstruction of business protects <strong>&#8220;business.&#8221;<\/strong> The Supreme Court of Korea defines that term narrowly.<\/p>\n<p>The Court held: &#8220;Work carried out simply as part of ordinary personal daily life, which cannot be regarded as based on an occupation or a position in social life, does not fall within &#8216;business&#8217; protected under the offense of obstruction of business.&#8221; (Supreme Court of Korea, November 9, 2017, 2014Do3270)<\/p>\n<p>The case concerned a homemaker driving on a private errand to catch an express bus; that driving was held not to be &#8220;business.&#8221; As recently as September 2025 the Court reaffirmed that &#8220;&#8216;business&#8217; protected under the offense of obstruction of business means work or an undertaking engaged in continuously on the basis of an occupation or a position in social life,&#8221; adding that prosecution for obstruction of business should be approached with caution (Supreme Court of Korea, September 11, 2025, 2022Do1665).<\/p>\n<p>Applied to a lease, the <strong>ordinary residential life and household activities of a residential tenant are difficult to characterize as &#8220;business&#8221;<\/strong>. So while cutting power to a shop or an office is prosecuted as obstruction of business, that charge is hard to sustain for purely residential premises. If the tenant has been working from home or running a small business there, that portion may be assessed separately.<\/p>\n<p><\/p>\n<h2 id=\"sec-8\">Does that mean a residential landlord commits no offense at all?<\/h2>\n<p>Far from it. The moment the landlord touches the <strong>door or the lock<\/strong>, a different offense is waiting: obstruction of the exercise of rights under <strong>Article 323 of the Criminal Act<\/strong>. It is committed by taking, concealing, or destroying <strong>one&#8217;s own property<\/strong> that is the object of another person&#8217;s possession or right, thereby obstructing the exercise of that right.<\/p>\n<p>Many landlords reason that a door they own is theirs to break. On that specific point they are correct: <strong>criminal damage to property is not made out<\/strong>, because that offense requires the property of another. But it is precisely for that reason that obstruction of the exercise of rights applies.<\/p>\n<p>Where a landlord struck and destroyed the entrance door and inner room door of a unit leased to a tenant using a pickaxe, the court acquitted on criminal damage while convicting on the alternative charge of obstruction of the exercise of rights: the defendant &#8220;destroyed his own property that was the object of the victim&#8217;s right, thereby obstructing the victim&#8217;s exercise of the leasehold.&#8221; Combined with aggravated intrusion upon habitation, the sentence was <strong>four months&#8217; imprisonment, suspended for one year<\/strong> (Suwon District Court, August 19, 2021, 2020No6480).<\/p>\n<p>The more common modern form involves the door lock. A judgment delivered in September 2025 captures the situation exactly. The criminal facts found by the court were: &#8220;In mid-February 2024, at the said Unit C of Building B, while the victim was absent, the defendant arbitrarily changed the entrance door lock code and did not inform the victim, thereby preventing the victim from entering the unit and impairing the utility of the door lock managed by the victim, and thus destroyed the defendant&#8217;s own door lock that was the object of the victim&#8217;s right and obstructed the victim&#8217;s exercise of rights.&#8221; (Seoul Southern District Court, September 11, 2025, 2025No365)<\/p>\n<p>The lease had expired and the landlord had not returned the deposit. The landlord obtained the code by telling the tenant it was needed to paper the walls for a new tenant, then changed it while the tenant was away. At trial the landlord argued that the tenant could still enter with a key card, so the utility of the lock had not been impaired. That argument failed, and a <strong>fine of KRW 700,000<\/strong> was imposed.<\/p>\n<p>Changing four digits takes ten seconds. It also produces a criminal record.<\/p>\n<p><\/p>\n<h2 id=\"sec-9\">What offense is committed simply by opening the door and walking in?<\/h2>\n<p>Intrusion upon habitation. This is where landlords are most frequently mistaken, asking how entering one&#8217;s own building can be trespass. The Supreme Court of Korea is unambiguous.<\/p>\n<p>The Court held: &#8220;Because the offense of intrusion upon habitation protects the de facto peace of the dwelling, whether the resident or custodian holds a right to reside in or to keep the building does not determine whether the offense is established; and since the peace of the dwelling must be protected even where the possession is that of a person without a right to possess, the offense of intrusion upon habitation is established even where a rights-holder enters the building by way of self-help in the exercise of that right.&#8221; (Supreme Court of Korea, March 15, 2007, 2006Do7044)<\/p>\n<p>In that case the greenhouse belonged to the defendant, yet because another person had taken delivery and held possession, forcing the lock and entering was held to be intrusion upon habitation. The decisive phrase is &#8220;even where the possession is that of a person without a right to possess.&#8221; As shown in section 4 above, even where the tenant <strong>is<\/strong> in unlawful possession, that fact does not justify the landlord&#8217;s entry.<\/p>\n<p>In short, a single act of opening the door to remove a tenant&#8217;s belongings can give rise to <strong>obstruction of the exercise of rights and intrusion upon habitation together<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<p><\/p>\n<h2 id=\"sec-10\">What comes back on a landlord who goes ahead with the power cut?<\/h2>\n<p>Not only criminal liability. Civil consequences return along two paths.<\/p>\n<p>First, the cut-off itself is a tort. In a case where a management body of a sectionally owned building cut off power and water and stopped the elevator in order to collect unpaid management fees, the Supreme Court of Korea held: &#8220;In order for measures such as cutting off electricity and water to be lawful and not to constitute a tort, it is not sufficient that the measures conformed to the management rules; they must, on a comprehensive assessment of the motive and purpose of the measures, the means and method, the circumstances leading to them, and the extent of the harm suffered by the occupant, be found to possess such reasonableness as is permissible under social norms so that unlawfulness is absent.&#8221; (Supreme Court of Korea, June 29, 2006, 2004Da3598, 3604)<\/p>\n<p>The essential point is that a clause in the rules or in the lease does not by itself confer immunity. In that case the Court went further and reversed even the lower court&#8217;s partial limitation of the management body&#8217;s liability.<\/p>\n<p>Second, and more painful from the landlord&#8217;s perspective, <strong>the same judgment held that no money is owed for the period the premises could not be used.<\/strong> The Court held: &#8220;Where a sectional owner has been unable to use and profit from the building owing to unlawful interference with use, such as an unlawful cut-off of electricity and water or suspension of elevator service by the management body or other management entity, that sectional owner shall be regarded as not bearing the management fee obligations accruing during that period.&#8221; (Supreme Court of Korea, June 29, 2006, 2004Da3598, 3604)<\/p>\n<p>That holding concerns management fees, but the structure is the same as a lease. As section 2 showed, the basis for charging an amount equivalent to rent is that the tenant <strong>actually used and profited from<\/strong> the premises. If the landlord cut the power so that the tenant could not use the unit, then for that period there was no use and no profit.<\/p>\n<p>The consequence is striking. The moment a landlord forces a power cut, the landlord begins to <strong>dismantle his own assertion that the deposit was exhausted by rent<\/strong>. The starting date of unlawful possession identified in section 4 is pushed back by the same margin. A measure intended to pressure the tenant ends up eroding the landlord&#8217;s own claim for damages.<\/p>\n<p><\/p>\n<h2 id=\"sec-11\">What should landlords and tenants each do?<\/h2>\n<p>The case law translates into the following conduct rules.<\/p>\n<table>\n<thead>\n<tr>\n<th>Party<\/th>\n<th>What to do<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td>Landlord<\/td>\n<td>Fix the date the deposit reached zero <strong>using bank records<\/strong>. Damages may be claimed from that date. Notify the tenant of that fact by content-certified mail (<em>naeyong jeungmyeong<\/em>) so that the time the tenant &#8220;could have known&#8221; of the loss of the defense arrives sooner. Then <strong>leave the utilities and the door alone<\/strong> and proceed by eviction action or provisional disposition ordering surrender.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Tenant<\/td>\n<td><strong>Maintain possession<\/strong>, which is the precondition for opposing power and priority repayment rights. If the proper recipient of rent is unclear, do not simply stop paying \u2014 make a <strong>deposit in lieu of performance<\/strong> with the court. Simply falling into arrears only exhausts the deposit faster and brings forward the date on which possession turns unlawful.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Tenant facing a cut-off<\/td>\n<td>Record the time and condition of the cut-off <strong>with photographs and video<\/strong>. The tenant may contest liability for amounts equivalent to rent during that period and may claim damages. Whether to file a criminal complaint should be assessed at the same time.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Landlord who changed the lock<\/td>\n<td>Restore it at once and inform the tenant. Obstruction of the exercise of rights is made out <strong>merely because the tenant was prevented from entering<\/strong>, and the availability of a key card was rejected as a defense.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<p>In districts such as the Songdo International Business District, where leases turn over quickly and a high proportion of tenants are foreign nationals, the second row deserves particular attention. Under the Housing Lease Protection Act, a foreign tenant&#8217;s opposing power rests on possession together with a report of place of residence under the Immigration Act, in place of the resident registration used by Korean nationals. If those requirements lapse while the unit is briefly left empty, the right of priority repayment cannot be recovered.<\/p>\n<p><\/p>\n<h2 id=\"sec-faq\">Frequently asked questions<\/h2>\n<div class=\"faq-item\">\n<p class=\"faq-q\">Q. If the lease has ended and the tenant will not leave, is that immediately unlawful possession?<\/p>\n<p>No. The tenant&#8217;s duty to return the premises and the landlord&#8217;s duty to return the deposit stand in a relationship of simultaneous performance, so unless the landlord asserts and proves that it returned the deposit or made an actual tender causing the tenant to lose that defense, the tenant&#8217;s possession is not unlawful possession (Supreme Court of Korea, May 29, 1998, 98Da6497). A clause requiring twice the rent for delayed surrender presupposes unlawful possession and therefore does not apply (Supreme Court of Korea, July 25, 1995, 95Da14664, 14671).<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<div class=\"faq-item\">\n<p class=\"faq-q\">Q. If the tenant left only belongings behind and did not actually live there, is rent still owed?<\/p>\n<p>In principle no. &#8220;Benefit&#8221; in unjust enrichment means substantive benefit, so if the tenant continued to hold possession but did not use and profit from the premises in accordance with the purpose of the lease and thus obtained no substantive benefit, no obligation to return unjust enrichment arises \u2014 and this is so even if the tenant did not remove its fixtures (Supreme Court of Korea, July 10, 1998, 98Da8554). The same result followed where a tenant filed a business closure report and left the fittings in place (Supreme Court of Korea, November 29, 2018, 2018Da240424, 240431). The reasoning does not transfer where a residential tenant simply keeps living there.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<div class=\"faq-item\">\n<p class=\"faq-q\">Q. If the tenant kept living there after the lease ended, must the tenant pay current market rent?<\/p>\n<p>No. The Supreme Court of Korea held that a tenant who continues to occupy and to use and profit from the premises until the deposit is returned bears only the obligation to pay the rent stipulated in the previous lease agreement, and not unjust enrichment corresponding to market rent (Supreme Court of Korea, November 9, 2023, 2023Da257600). That judgment concerns Article 9(2) of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act, but Article 4(2) of the Housing Lease Protection Act uses effectively identical language, which supports the same conclusion for residential leases.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<div class=\"faq-item\">\n<p class=\"faq-q\">Q. When, then, does the tenant&#8217;s possession become unlawful?<\/p>\n<p>From the time the deposit has been fully absorbed by rent and other deductions so that the defense of simultaneous performance is extinguished. The Supreme Court of Korea held that where the tenant has lost that defense yet continues to refuse to return the premises, then absent special circumstances establishing another lawful title, possession from the time the tenant could have known of that loss constitutes at the least negligent possession amounting to a tort (Supreme Court of Korea, June 13, 2024, 2022Da228667). The reference point is not the day the lease ended but the day the deposit reached zero.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<div class=\"faq-item\">\n<p class=\"faq-q\">Q. Who must prove when the deposit was exhausted?<\/p>\n<p>The landlord. The Supreme Court of Korea held that the landlord bears the burden of assertion and proof as to the accrual of the claims for unjust enrichment and damages secured by the deposit, while the tenant bears that burden as to whether those claims were extinguished by payment or otherwise (Supreme Court of Korea, July 25, 1995, 95Da14664, 14671). The month in which arrears began must therefore be identifiable from bank records, and a single month can change the outcome.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<div class=\"faq-item\">\n<p class=\"faq-q\">Q. May a landlord cut off the electricity if the tenant refuses to leave?<\/p>\n<p>As a rule, no. In a commercial case, however, the Supreme Court of Korea found room to treat a cut-off as a justifiable act under Article 20 of the Criminal Act where the lease term had already expired, the deposit had been entirely extinguished by arrears, and the landlord had issued two formal demands and advance notice before a single cut-off. By contrast, where 7 to 9 months of the term remained and over KRW 70 million of the deposit was intact, and the landlord gave only a warning before cutting off twice, no justification was found (Supreme Court of Korea, September 20, 2007, 2006Do9157). A contractual cut-off clause alone does not confer immunity.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<div class=\"faq-item\">\n<p class=\"faq-q\">Q. What must be shown for a utility cut-off to qualify as a justifiable act?<\/p>\n<p>All five requirements must be met: legitimacy of motive and purpose, reasonableness of means and method, balance between the interest protected and the interest infringed, urgency, and supplementarity in the sense that no other means was available (Supreme Court of Korea, April 27, 2006, 2005Do8074). In practice supplementarity is decisive, since it is difficult to establish that no other means existed while an eviction action remains available.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<div class=\"faq-item\">\n<p class=\"faq-q\">Q. Is cutting power to a residential tenant obstruction of business?<\/p>\n<p>That charge is difficult to sustain. &#8220;Business&#8221; for this offense means work or an undertaking engaged in continuously on the basis of an occupation or a position in social life, and work carried out simply as part of ordinary personal daily life falls outside it (Supreme Court of Korea, November 9, 2017, 2014Do3270; Supreme Court of Korea, September 11, 2025, 2022Do1665). Ordinary residential life and household activities are hard to bring within that definition. If the tenant has been working from home or running a small business there, that portion may be assessed separately.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<div class=\"faq-item\">\n<p class=\"faq-q\">Q. If obstruction of business does not apply, does a residential landlord escape liability?<\/p>\n<p>No. A landlord who destroys the door of a unit the tenant occupies, or who manipulates the door lock, commits obstruction of the exercise of rights under Article 323 of the Criminal Act. Because the door belongs to the landlord, criminal damage to property is not made out \u2014 but for that very reason the door is &#8220;one&#8217;s own property that is the object of another&#8217;s right.&#8221; Where a landlord destroyed an entrance door with a pickaxe, criminal damage was dismissed while obstruction of the exercise of rights and aggravated intrusion upon habitation were established, resulting in four months&#8217; imprisonment suspended for one year (Suwon District Court, August 19, 2021, 2020No6480).<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<div class=\"faq-item\">\n<p class=\"faq-q\">Q. Is merely changing the door lock code a crime?<\/p>\n<p>Yes. Where a lease had expired and the landlord had not returned the deposit, and the landlord arbitrarily changed the door lock code while the tenant was absent so that the tenant could not enter, the court found that the utility of the lock had been impaired, convicted the landlord of obstruction of the exercise of rights, and imposed a fine of KRW 700,000 (Seoul Southern District Court, September 11, 2025, 2025No365). The landlord&#8217;s argument that the tenant could still enter with a key card was rejected.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<div class=\"faq-item\">\n<p class=\"faq-q\">Q. If the tenant is in unlawful possession, may the landlord open the door and enter?<\/p>\n<p>No. Because the offense of intrusion upon habitation protects the de facto peace of the dwelling, whether the resident holds a right to reside does not determine the offense; the peace of the dwelling is protected even where the possession is that of a person without a right to possess, so the offense is established even where a rights-holder enters by way of self-help in the exercise of that right (Supreme Court of Korea, March 15, 2007, 2006Do7044).<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<div class=\"faq-item\">\n<p class=\"faq-q\">Q. Must rent be paid for a period during which the power was cut off?<\/p>\n<p>There is substantial room to contest it. The basis for charging an amount equivalent to rent is that the tenant actually used and profited from the premises, and if a cut-off made the premises unusable there was no such use during that period. The Supreme Court of Korea held that where a sectional owner could not use and profit from a building owing to an unlawful cut-off of utilities by the management entity, that owner does not bear the management fee obligations accruing during that period (Supreme Court of Korea, June 29, 2006, 2004Da3598, 3604). From the landlord&#8217;s side, a cut-off may therefore undermine the landlord&#8217;s own assertion that the deposit was exhausted.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<div class=\"faq-item\">\n<p class=\"faq-q\">Q. What lawful steps should a landlord take when a tenant will not leave?<\/p>\n<p>Fix and record the date the deposit reached zero using bank records, notify the tenant of that fact and demand surrender by content-certified mail, and file an action for delivery of the building. Where the situation is urgent, a provisional disposition ordering surrender may be considered. Cutting off utilities, changing locks, or removing belongings invites criminal liability and also weakens the landlord&#8217;s own claim for damages, and should be avoided.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<p class=\"closing\">This article explains general principles on the basis of published judgments of the Supreme Court of Korea and the lower courts. The outcome of any individual case may differ according to the wording of the lease, the record of arrears and payments, and the actual manner of possession, use, and profit.<\/p>\n<div class=\"author-box\">\n    <img decoding=\"async\" class=\"author-avatar\" src=\"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/\ubc15\uc18c\uc601-1.png\" alt=\"Soyoung Park, Representative Attorney \u2014 Atlas Legal\"><\/p>\n<div class=\"author-text\">\n<div class=\"author-section-label\">About the Author<\/div>\n<div class=\"author-name\">Soyoung Park | Representative Attorney<\/div>\n<div class=\"author-detail\">Family Law, Inheritance, Construction &amp; Real Estate Disputes<\/div>\n<div class=\"author-detail\">Judicial Research and Training Institute, 33rd Class<\/div>\n<div class=\"author-detail\">Korea University, Department of Law<\/div>\n<div class=\"author-detail\">Atlas Legal | Incheon Songdo, South Korea<\/div>\n<p>      <a class=\"author-link\" href=\"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">Visit Atlas Legal Homepage \u2192<\/a>\n    <\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Under Korean law a tenant&#8217;s holdover possession is lawful until the security deposit is exhausted by accrued rent, after which it becomes a tort. A landlord who cuts utilities or changes the door lock code faces criminal liability and may forfeit rent for that period.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_kadence_starter_templates_imported_post":false,"_kad_post_transparent":"","_kad_post_title":"","_kad_post_layout":"","_kad_post_sidebar_id":"","_kad_post_content_style":"","_kad_post_vertical_padding":"","_kad_post_feature":"","_kad_post_feature_position":"","_kad_post_header":false,"_kad_post_footer":false,"_kad_post_classname":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[17],"tags":[910,727,912,908,911],"class_list":["post-1905","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-civil","tag-holdover-tenant","tag-korean-real-estate","tag-landlord-self-help","tag-lease-termination","tag-security-deposit"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v28.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Holdover Tenant and Landlord Self-Help in South Korea | Atlas Legal<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Under Korean law a tenant&#039;s holdover possession is lawful until the security deposit is exhausted by accrued rent, after which it becomes a tort. A landlord who cuts utilities or changes the door lock code faces criminal liability and may forfeit rent for that period.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/holdover-tenant-unlawful-possession-landlord-self-help-south-korea\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"ko_KR\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Holdover Tenant and Landlord Self-Help in South Korea | Atlas Legal\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Under Korean law a tenant&#039;s holdover possession is lawful until the security deposit is exhausted by accrued rent, after which it becomes a tort. A landlord who cuts utilities or changes the door lock code faces criminal liability and may forfeit rent for that period.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/holdover-tenant-unlawful-possession-landlord-self-help-south-korea\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Atlas Legal Blog\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-08-22T08:09:18+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-08-22T08:10:28+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"\ubc95\ubb34\ubc95\uc778 \uc544\ud2c0\ub77c\uc2a4\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"\uae00\uc4f4\uc774\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"\ubc95\ubb34\ubc95\uc778 \uc544\ud2c0\ub77c\uc2a4\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"\uc608\uc0c1 \ub418\ub294 \ud310\ub3c5 \uc2dc\uac04\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"26\ubd84\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/holdover-tenant-unlawful-possession-landlord-self-help-south-korea\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/holdover-tenant-unlawful-possession-landlord-self-help-south-korea\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"\ubc95\ubb34\ubc95\uc778 \uc544\ud2c0\ub77c\uc2a4\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/184bcdecc06f89fd6c36b29781165b55\"},\"headline\":\"Holdover Tenant and Landlord Self-Help in South Korea\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-08-22T08:09:18+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-08-22T08:10:28+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/holdover-tenant-unlawful-possession-landlord-self-help-south-korea\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":5309,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/#organization\"},\"keywords\":[\"holdover tenant\",\"Korean real estate\",\"landlord self-help\",\"lease termination\",\"security deposit\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Civil\\\/Administrative\"],\"inLanguage\":\"ko-KR\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/holdover-tenant-unlawful-possession-landlord-self-help-south-korea\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/holdover-tenant-unlawful-possession-landlord-self-help-south-korea\\\/\",\"name\":\"Holdover Tenant and Landlord Self-Help in South Korea | Atlas Legal\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-08-22T08:09:18+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-08-22T08:10:28+00:00\",\"description\":\"Under Korean law a tenant's holdover possession is lawful until the security deposit is exhausted by accrued rent, after which it becomes a tort. A landlord who cuts utilities or changes the door lock code faces criminal liability and may forfeit rent for that period.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/holdover-tenant-unlawful-possession-landlord-self-help-south-korea\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"ko-KR\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/holdover-tenant-unlawful-possession-landlord-self-help-south-korea\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/holdover-tenant-unlawful-possession-landlord-self-help-south-korea\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"\ud648\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Holdover Tenant and Landlord Self-Help in South Korea\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/\",\"name\":\"Atlas Legal English Blog\",\"description\":\"\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"ko-KR\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Atlas Legal English Blog\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"ko-KR\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/3\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/\ud3f4\ub354-\uc0c1\ub2e8-\uc9c1\uc0ac\uac01\ud615.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/3\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/\ud3f4\ub354-\uc0c1\ub2e8-\uc9c1\uc0ac\uac01\ud615.png\",\"width\":540,\"height\":485,\"caption\":\"Atlas Legal English Blog\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"}},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/184bcdecc06f89fd6c36b29781165b55\",\"name\":\"\ubc95\ubb34\ubc95\uc778 \uc544\ud2c0\ub77c\uc2a4\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"ko-KR\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/f03bca99acfafded0c4fa1b01dee8839b10f831ccba39db4d9dc175f44d3d640?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/f03bca99acfafded0c4fa1b01dee8839b10f831ccba39db4d9dc175f44d3d640?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/f03bca99acfafded0c4fa1b01dee8839b10f831ccba39db4d9dc175f44d3d640?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"\ubc95\ubb34\ubc95\uc778 \uc544\ud2c0\ub77c\uc2a4\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/author\\\/prinz001\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Holdover Tenant and Landlord Self-Help in South Korea | Atlas Legal","description":"Under Korean law a tenant's holdover possession is lawful until the security deposit is exhausted by accrued rent, after which it becomes a tort. A landlord who cuts utilities or changes the door lock code faces criminal liability and may forfeit rent for that period.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/holdover-tenant-unlawful-possession-landlord-self-help-south-korea\/","og_locale":"ko_KR","og_type":"article","og_title":"Holdover Tenant and Landlord Self-Help in South Korea | Atlas Legal","og_description":"Under Korean law a tenant's holdover possession is lawful until the security deposit is exhausted by accrued rent, after which it becomes a tort. A landlord who cuts utilities or changes the door lock code faces criminal liability and may forfeit rent for that period.","og_url":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/holdover-tenant-unlawful-possession-landlord-self-help-south-korea\/","og_site_name":"Atlas Legal Blog","article_published_time":"2026-08-22T08:09:18+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-08-22T08:10:28+00:00","author":"\ubc95\ubb34\ubc95\uc778 \uc544\ud2c0\ub77c\uc2a4","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"\uae00\uc4f4\uc774":"\ubc95\ubb34\ubc95\uc778 \uc544\ud2c0\ub77c\uc2a4","\uc608\uc0c1 \ub418\ub294 \ud310\ub3c5 \uc2dc\uac04":"26\ubd84"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/holdover-tenant-unlawful-possession-landlord-self-help-south-korea\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/holdover-tenant-unlawful-possession-landlord-self-help-south-korea\/"},"author":{"name":"\ubc95\ubb34\ubc95\uc778 \uc544\ud2c0\ub77c\uc2a4","@id":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/#\/schema\/person\/184bcdecc06f89fd6c36b29781165b55"},"headline":"Holdover Tenant and Landlord Self-Help in South Korea","datePublished":"2026-08-22T08:09:18+00:00","dateModified":"2026-08-22T08:10:28+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/holdover-tenant-unlawful-possession-landlord-self-help-south-korea\/"},"wordCount":5309,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/#organization"},"keywords":["holdover tenant","Korean real estate","landlord self-help","lease termination","security deposit"],"articleSection":["Civil\/Administrative"],"inLanguage":"ko-KR"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/holdover-tenant-unlawful-possession-landlord-self-help-south-korea\/","url":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/holdover-tenant-unlawful-possession-landlord-self-help-south-korea\/","name":"Holdover Tenant and Landlord Self-Help in South Korea | Atlas Legal","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-08-22T08:09:18+00:00","dateModified":"2026-08-22T08:10:28+00:00","description":"Under Korean law a tenant's holdover possession is lawful until the security deposit is exhausted by accrued rent, after which it becomes a tort. A landlord who cuts utilities or changes the door lock code faces criminal liability and may forfeit rent for that period.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/holdover-tenant-unlawful-possession-landlord-self-help-south-korea\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"ko-KR","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/holdover-tenant-unlawful-possession-landlord-self-help-south-korea\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/holdover-tenant-unlawful-possession-landlord-self-help-south-korea\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"\ud648","item":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Holdover Tenant and Landlord Self-Help in South Korea"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/","name":"Atlas Legal English Blog","description":"","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"ko-KR"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/#organization","name":"Atlas Legal English Blog","url":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"ko-KR","@id":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2025\/09\/\ud3f4\ub354-\uc0c1\ub2e8-\uc9c1\uc0ac\uac01\ud615.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2025\/09\/\ud3f4\ub354-\uc0c1\ub2e8-\uc9c1\uc0ac\uac01\ud615.png","width":540,"height":485,"caption":"Atlas Legal English Blog"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/#\/schema\/person\/184bcdecc06f89fd6c36b29781165b55","name":"\ubc95\ubb34\ubc95\uc778 \uc544\ud2c0\ub77c\uc2a4","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"ko-KR","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/f03bca99acfafded0c4fa1b01dee8839b10f831ccba39db4d9dc175f44d3d640?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/f03bca99acfafded0c4fa1b01dee8839b10f831ccba39db4d9dc175f44d3d640?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/f03bca99acfafded0c4fa1b01dee8839b10f831ccba39db4d9dc175f44d3d640?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"\ubc95\ubb34\ubc95\uc778 \uc544\ud2c0\ub77c\uc2a4"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/atlaw.kr"],"url":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/author\/prinz001\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1905","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1905"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1905\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1908,"href":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1905\/revisions\/1908"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1905"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1905"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1905"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}