2. Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act (Judgment by public notice) of the applicable provisions of Acts;

3. The Plaintiffs seeking access prohibition against the Defendant and also seek indirect compulsory performance.

However, the compulsory execution against the non-performance obligation, which is an incidental obligation, can only be indirectly enforced, and the decision of indirect compulsory execution is a principle to order certain compensation in the event of non-performance of obligation through a separate examination of the debtor upon a separate request of the creditor after the execution title has been established in the judgment procedure.

Therefore, in a judgment procedure to establish an enforcement title with respect to an obligation of omission, indirect compulsory performance should be made in preparation for a case where an obligor fails to perform his/her obligation, even if the enforcement title ordering an obligation of omission, considering it as at the time of the closing of argument in the litigation procedure concerning the obligation of omission, is established, it is probable that the obligor may violate it within a short period, and the pertinent amount of compensation ordered under Article 261 of

(See Supreme Court Decision 201Da31225 Decided May 29, 2014). In this case, the Defendant did not give the Defendant an opportunity to state his/her opinion regarding the voluntary performance of the obligation to refrain from access, etc. In addition, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiffs alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant is likely to violate this within a short time even if the enforcement title is established.

Therefore, the part of the plaintiffs' indirect compulsory performance claim is rejected.

4. Conclusion, the plaintiffs' claims of this case are accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as they are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.