2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

In the above accident, Plaintiff A suffered active damages of KRW 48,747,081, including medical expenses, and small damages of KRW 61,880,694, and mental damages of KRW 61,880,694, and Plaintiff A and Plaintiff A, the father of Plaintiff B, the mother of Plaintiff C, and Plaintiff D, the birth birth, respectively.

The defendant is liable to compensate the damages suffered by the plaintiffs Gap due to such unlawful block installation acts, since part of the housing of the plaintiffs residing in the defendant was a part of the housing unit that was disputed with ordinary plaintiffs, which was constructed a dry field for the purpose of obstructing the smooth passage of the plaintiffs, and built concrete block on the boundary, which was a part of the housing unit owned by the defendant, which was a state-owned road beyond the land owned by the defendant.

Accordingly, with respect to the defendant, the plaintiff A seeks payment of the consolation money of KRW 50 million and KRW 10 million, which is a part of the property damage, and the plaintiff B, C, and D seek payment of KRW 5 million, respectively.

2. Although examining all the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs, it is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff A suffered bodily injury, as alleged, since it exceeded the concrete boundary block installed by the defendant.

Even if Plaintiff A sustained the same background as the plaintiffs asserted, the following circumstances are comprehensively taken into account: (a) the time of accident was low; (b) the width of the passage route was extended to such an extent that does not cause any inconvenience to pedestrian traffic; and (c) the location of the boundary block seems to have been well aware of the location of the boundary block, as Plaintiff A was a flatd site; and (d) the location of the boundary block appears to have been well known.