1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) that constitutes the following amount ordering payment with respect to a counterclaim.

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the basic facts are the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The reasoning for this part of the judgment on the claim of the principal lawsuit is as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance court, except for the rejection of each of the evidence Nos. 13 through 15 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) which is insufficient to recognize the plaintiff's assertion as evidence submitted additionally in the trial. Thus, this part of the judgment is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Judgment on a counterclaim

A. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion was from November 5, 2013 to November 20, 201 of the same year, and from December 2, 2013 to February 4, 2014, the Plaintiff obstructed the Defendant’s passage of construction vehicles, etc. by placing an obstacle, etc. on the first entrance, which is an access route to the instant construction site.

Accordingly, the defendant was unable to carry out construction works for more than two months at the construction site of this case, and the plaintiff is obligated to compensate for the damage suffered by the defendant due to the suspension of construction.

The scope of the compensation for damages is ① interest of KRW 4,960,000 incurred for two months during the period of the discontinuance of the construction for the purpose of the construction project, ② the cost of leasing temporary materials invested in the construction site of this case, ③ the cost of the construction project of this case, ③ the cost of the construction project of this case did not run timely due to the Plaintiff’s obstruction of construction and the loss of opportunity to sell the construction site of this case, and ③ the amount of consolation money is KRW 30,000,000.

B. According to the evidence Nos. 2, 7, and 11 through 13 of the judgment No. 1, the Plaintiff interfered with the Plaintiff’s business by installing a strawer and strawer from around November 5, 2013 to around November 20 of the same year, and from around December 2013 to February 4, 2014 by installing a strawer and strawer from around December 5, 2013 to around February 4, 2014.