The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the removal of the septic tank of this case is not a business or business that D continues to engage in under the social status and is not a business subject to protection of interference with business, and the defendant did not exercise any power corresponding to interference with business, and even if it constitutes interference with family affairs, it constitutes a legitimate defense as a reasonable act necessary to defend the infringement of current unfair legal interests.
A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to whether the removal of the septic tank in this case is a business of interference with the business, the defendant's father C has won the lawsuit by filing a claim for removal, etc. of a customary type of water collection room (hereinafter "the septic tank in this case") which was constructed by the former owner of N with concrete underground, such as C-owned land and adjoining land (Seoul Western District Court 201Na 776), and thereafter, the plaintiff won the lawsuit (the Seoul Western District Court 201Na 776) by filing a claim for unjust profits equivalent to N's fees for the part entering the public road through N-owned land (the Seoul Western District Court 2013Da15190) and the above Seoul Western District Court 2013Na15190 against N-C's claim against N-owned land in this case (the plaintiff's actual possession of the land in this case).
N Recognizing the fact that N’s removal of the instant septic tank was requested to the Victim G, the representative of the present building facility, and the victim’s removal of the instant septic tank constitutes affairs or projects continuously engaged in based on the social living status, and thus constitutes affairs subject to protection of interference with business.
This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.
B. The defendant.