2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. A. On September 2010, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff did not collect the food of the restaurant operated by the Plaintiff, and reported it to the competent Myeon office and caused the Plaintiff to perform the waterworks construction work using enormous money.

After that, the Defendant distributed to the Plaintiff’s customer a leaflet stating “E” to the employees working at the Plaintiff’s restaurant with the name of “E,” and then, around November 2010, the Plaintiff’s transaction was suspended by connecting the Plaintiff’s customer with “E” to the Plaintiff’s transaction.

After that, the defendant found the plaintiff's restaurant and damaged the internal house and warehouse.

Even after that, the defendant continued to play a bath before the plaintiff's restaurant, and created spits, spits, etc. to his wife, thereby hindering the plaintiff's restaurant business.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the total of KRW 50,000,000 and KRW 20,000,000 as sales losses and damages for delay due to the above tort.

(However, unlike the cause of the claim, the plaintiff sought payment of KRW 100,000,00 in the purport of the claim.

Judgment

1) The fact that the Defendant destroyed the Plaintiff’s restaurant house and warehouse around 2010 does not conflict between the parties, but it is evident in the record that the Plaintiff’s instant lawsuit was filed on January 30, 2017 after three years have elapsed since the claim for damages arising from the said tort had already been extinguished by the statute of limitations before the instant lawsuit was filed. (ii) Other entries and videos in the evidence A through 4 are recognized to have interfered with the Plaintiff’s restaurant business, as alleged by the Plaintiff.