1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff A and the defendant are dismissed.

2. Of the appeal costs, the costs incurred between the Plaintiff A and the Defendant.

Facts of recognition

On November 20, 2010, the Defendant entered the above house entrance (hereinafter “instant intrusion”) and theft (hereinafter “instant larceny”) of the Plaintiff’s residence (hereinafter “D”) located in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Gangnam-gu Seoul, in order to secure data related to the Plaintiff Company E’s employee F for the purpose of securing data related to the Plaintiff’s residence (hereinafter “D”) and entered the said house entrance number, and entered the Plaintiff’s residence.

On November 26, 2010, the Defendant invaded into D’s house, and cited and stolen a document establishing a right to collateral security, a certificate of the seal impression of H, and a certificate of the right to registration of H-owned I building, which was prepared between the representative director of Plaintiff A and G, and H.

Around November 2010, the Defendant used four copies of the monetary loan contract, which was written by the Plaintiff A and H to settle the claim amounting to KRW 2.41 billion, which had been affected by the D house around the end of November, 2010.

On February 2, 2011, the Defendant intruded into a house D with a police officer, and stolen the Plaintiff A’s 19 Sknife, 19 Sknife, 1,00,000 won of the market value, 1,000,000 won of the market value, 1,000,000,000 won of the e-mail, 1,000,000 won of the e-mail, 1,000,000 won of the e-mail,

On November 2010, the Defendant cited and stolen a 1 million Won, the market price of the Plaintiff-owned in Yongsan-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City JD 721, the market price of which is equivalent to 1 million won, 1 million won in total, 2 of the market price, 1.2 billion won in total, 2 of the market price, 1.2 million won in total, 4 million won in total, and 4 million won in the market price.

The Defendant’s defamation (hereinafter “the instant defamation”) around November 11, 2010, did not see each other as a matter of the Plaintiff A and K’s personal affairs with F and E, an employee of the Company E, even though it did not see that it was in a fluorous restaurant located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant defamation”). However, “Plaintiff A, K, and F are the tride relationship between Plaintiff A, K, and F. It was difficult to fluorize a bitch.”