1. The Defendant’s KRW 1,500,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from March 2, 2018 to May 29, 2019.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The land D and E (hereinafter “D”) is owned by the Plaintiff.

A ground passage near 120 square meters prior to Gyeonggi-gu, Gyeonggi-do (hereinafter referred to as “instant passage”) is a road actually used for the traffic of the general public.

Through the passage of this case, access to land, such as D, can be made.

B. From September 10, 2017 to March 2, 2018, the Defendant: (a) installed posts ( approximately approximately 2.5 meters in length, approximately 2.2 meters in length) on the instant road along the road; and (b) made it impossible for the Defendant to pass an emergency vehicle, cargo vehicle, etc. on the land, such as D, with the land of merit.

On September 13, 2018, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 500,000 as a result of general traffic obstruction in the leisure branch of Suwon District Court on September 13, 2018, and the said order was finalized on September 28, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, 15, Eul evidence 1 (including provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Unless there exist special circumstances such as infringement of the rights, etc. of other persons with respect to a road, a person who intends to pass through a road offered for the general public at the occurrence of liability for damages, constitutes a tort under the Civil Act if a third party infringes on the freedom to pass through the road by the same means as other persons within the scope necessary for daily life, and a third party infringes on the freedom to pass by a specific person by interfering with passage of the road only for a specific person.

(see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da63720, Oct. 13, 2011). According to the fact of recognition under Paragraph (1), the Defendant infringed the Plaintiff’s freedom of passage by installing posts on the instant road to interfere with the entry of emergency vehicles, cargo vehicles, etc.

Since it is apparent in light of the empirical rule that the plaintiff suffered from mental suffering, the defendant is obligated to pay consolation money for the above illegal act to the plaintiff.

3. The scope of damages liability shall be the amount of consolation money.