terugkeren + hebben

[logicgate]

I wonder why this is hebben for the formation of terugkeren in the composite tense

> hij heeft teruggekeerd

while the grammar says

A number of past participles can take both hebben and zijn. This concerns verbs that:

Indicate movement: You have to use zijn if you are talking about moving from or into a certain direction. You use hebben if the direction is not mentioned or implied. I wrote 'implied', because there are verbs that implicitly mention a direction, e.g. uitvaren (to sail out), binnenspringen (to jump inside, to drop by), langslopen (to walk by, to pass by), and opklimmen (to climb up, to rise).

To me this is a movement in a certain direction.

[BrutallyFrank]

I wonder why this is hebben for the formation of terugkeren in the composite tense

> hij heeft teruggekeerd

while the grammar says

A number of past participles can take both hebben and zijn. This concerns verbs that:

Indicate movement: You have to use zijn if you are talking about moving from or into a certain direction. You use hebben if the direction is not mentioned or implied. I wrote 'implied', because there are verbs that implicitly mention a direction, e.g. uitvaren (to sail out), binnenspringen (to jump inside, to drop by), langslopen (to walk by, to pass by), and opklimmen (to climb up, to rise).

To me this is a movement in a certain direction.

You can ignore that sentence: it's completely wrong!!

It should be: hij IS teruggekeerd.

[LeSNT2]

BrutallyFrank is correct, this sentence is wrong. It should be "Hij is teruggekeerd."