A. The party's relationship 1) The defendant is the second floor of the brick slive slive roof (hereinafter "the building of this case") owned by D in Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Nam-gu.

) Of the first floor E offices and the second floor E offices (hereinafter referred to as “the rear of this case”).

(2) On September 2016, the Plaintiff is operating a restaurant specialized in urban village delivery by leasing from D the first floor F of the instant building (hereinafter “instant commercial building”) around September 2016.

3) G, which the Plaintiff leased the instant commercial building from D before leasing, operated a package-type restaurant with the trade name “H” in the said commercial building. G, around August 2016, after the Plaintiff discontinued his/her restaurant business, at the time of leaving the instant commercial building to its original state at the time of leaving the commercial building, G discontinues a photograph display signboard stating the attached Form “H” (hereinafter “instant standing signboard”) that was set up on the front of the instant commercial building (hereinafter “instant commercial building”).

(4) As of the date of the closing of argument, the Plaintiff occupied the instant standing signboard in the instant commercial building as of the date of the closing of argument, and refused the Defendant’s demand for delivery.

B. On October 9, 2016, the Plaintiff reported the Defendant to the police on the premise that the instant standing signboard was owned by the Plaintiff, on the premise that it was stolen by the Defendant without the Plaintiff’s consent. (2) The Defendant was referred to a summary judgment on the charge of the said larceny, but the court recognized that it is inappropriate to adjudicate under the summary judgment proceedings on October 25, 2016, and dismissed the claim for the summary judgment.

C. On October 26, 2016, around 20:00 on October 26, 2016, the Defendant filed a report on the charge of interference with the business of October 26, 2016, following the Plaintiff’s complaint that the Plaintiff reported himself/herself to the police and submitted him/her to the summary trial, and that the Plaintiff’s restaurant was found to have known about the second floor of the Plaintiff’s diversity.

(e).