1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

1. Claims and the purport of appeal

1. In the first instance court, the Plaintiff claimed compensation for property damage and consolation money against the Defendants. The first instance court partly accepted the claim for property damage and dismissed the claim for consolation money.

In this regard, the Defendants appealed against the cited portion of the claim for property damage. Accordingly, the subject of this Court’s adjudication is limited to the cited portion of the claim for property damage.

2. Basic facts

A. On October 15, 2015, the relevant Plaintiff entered into a interior construction contract (hereinafter “instant construction contract”) with respect to the “F D D D D D D D D D” and the “F D D D D D D D D D D D,” on the first floor of the building in Seo-gu Incheon, Seo-gu, Incheon (hereinafter “instant hospital”) operated by the Plaintiff, with the construction cost of KRW 92 million and up to December 7, 2015. Defendant B is the above D’s representative director and Defendant C is its employee.

B. The Defendants, who possess the office of the Defendants, have caused disputes between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff as a matter of additional construction cost related to the instant construction project, and jointly used from June 13, 2016 to June 29 of the same month as the temporary site office at the time of the instant construction project, replace the entrance key of the Plaintiff’s office located adjacent to the instant hospital (hereinafter “instant office”) and replace the entrance key of the Plaintiff’s office located adjacent to the instant hospital that was used as the temporary site office at the time of the instant construction project, and “in the course of exercising the right of retention,”

F Dentals set up two banners, stating the phrase “the payment of construction cost” (hereinafter “the possession of this case”). Dentals set up two placards.

In the criminal procedure that was proceeded with by the plaintiff's complaint, the defendant B convicted him of a fine of KRW 1 million on June 8, 2017 in the case where he was charged with obstructing the plaintiff's hospital operation operations and commercial lease operations due to the possession of this case and filed a request for formal trial (Interference with the business affairs of Incheon District Court Decision 2017Da383, 583).