1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning of the court of the first instance’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) the reasoning of the court of the first instance, except for adding a judgment equivalent to that of paragraph (3), is the same as the reasoning of the first instance judgment; and (b) such reasoning is cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The Plaintiff’s grounds for appeal, excluding the part pertaining to additional determination as to paragraph (3), does not differ significantly from the allegations in the first instance court, and the fact-finding and determination in the first instance court are deemed legitimate even if all additional arguments and evidence were to be comprehensively taken into account). 2. On the part that was written after the first instance court’s decision, the Defendant’s “Defendant” as “Plaintiff” was dismissed.

No. 9 of the first instance judgment, 17 to 10 of the 10th 10th 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 2

The portion of “8,250,000 won” in the judgment of the first instance shall be 8,250,000 won x 23,850,000 won x 2.

The part of the judgment of the court of first instance, 5 to 10, “However, it is difficult to readily conclude the plaintiff” has been written as follows.

“On October 14, 2017, the Defendant’s interference with business was not limited to about 50 minutes since the Plaintiff’s interference with business on October 14, 2017 (No. 32-3), and the Plaintiff’s interference with business was delayed due to the interruption of the access road of this case, for which the Defendant cannot be liable to compensate for damages, and the Plaintiff’s interference with business was changed to the Plaintiff’s interference with business on October 14, 201 (the Plaintiff’s interference with business was able to work within a sufficiently planned time as a low source of the access road of this case, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this.

(2) The Plaintiff appears to have used caters on October 13, 2017 and October 25, 2017 to work for Q and R ships, other than P ships originally planned by the Plaintiff (Evidence Nos. 10, 11-2, and the time during which the Plaintiff used caters).