1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person residing in Sung-nam-si Seoul Metropolitan City C apartment 701 Dong 1409 (hereinafter “instant apartment”), and the Defendant is a person residing in the same subparagraph until April 27, 2014.

B. On April 26, 2013, around 07:10 on April 26, 2013, the Defendant, on the front corridor of the instant apartment, the Plaintiff’s house, by the Plaintiff’s report, threatened the Plaintiff, on the following grounds: (a) in order to comply with the Defendant’s receipt of a light crime so as to take place as a nearby disturbance, the Defendant found the Plaintiff and fighting the horse; (b) intended the Plaintiff to do so, and (c) took a dangerous thing in the Defendant’s home, and (d) led the Plaintiff to do harm.

As a result of the criminal trial in the Suwon District Court's Sungnam branch's criminal facts, the above criminal facts were found guilty, and the above court was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years on July 5, 2013 in the above court's imprisonment with prison labor for eight months, and the above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap 5, 9, 10 evidence (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply)

(2) Each entry and the purport of the whole pleading

2. The assertion and judgment

A. From October 2010, the Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion was residing in the instant apartment from around October 201, and the Defendant residing in the same 1408, which was next to the Plaintiff’s house, continuously generated noise due to the Plaintiff’s going through the late night-time meeting, singing in the anti-state music, and singing in the wall, etc., and asked the Defendant to refrain from producing noise directly or through the head of the management office, etc. on several occasions. However, the Defendant neglected this and continuously generated noise.

On April 26, 2013, the Defendant found the Plaintiff and her bath to the effect that the Plaintiff’s vision occurred due to noise problems with the Plaintiff, and that the Defendant she saw the Plaintiff as “responding to close down................., her house, her finger and threatened the Plaintiff at her home.

The defendant's above.