1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

purport, purport, and.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 23, 2017, the Plaintiff used water to show the hot water used by apartment occupants within the agency room of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu Management Office.

B. (1) On September 1, 2017, the Defendant, the resident of the above apartment complex, and nine other persons filed a complaint with the Plaintiff on the following: (a) on the grounds that “the Plaintiff had access to the agency room of the above apartment management office, which is an area where access was prohibited by using hot water to promptly and shower, and caused property damage to the resident by stealing the hot water, which is the property of the resident.” (b) On November 14, 2017, the Plaintiff was subject to a non-prosecution disposition against the charge of larceny (hereinafter “non-prosecution disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff had no awareness of the theft by the Seoul Northern District Prosecutors’ Office on the ground that “the Plaintiff was stolen” from the Seoul Northern District Prosecutors’ Office (Seoul Northern District Prosecutors’ Office 2017No 47883, hereinafter “Seoul Northern District Prosecutors’ Office 2017 No. 1”).

C. 1) On June 15, 2018, the complainants appealed against the first non-prosecution disposition and filed a complaint with the Seoul High Prosecutor’s Office. As a result, on the grounds that “the point of entering a building,” “the point of larceny,” the lower court rendered a second investigation order against the Plaintiff on the ground that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles and did not investigate. (2) On October 12, 2018, the lower court rendered a second investigation order against the Plaintiff on the ground that “the point of larceny,” and “the point of larceny,” respectively. (3) On October 12, 2018, the lower court rendered a second investigation order against the Plaintiff.”

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 6, 8 through 10, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3 and 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Although there was no error in relation to the theft of the Plaintiff’s assertion by the Plaintiff, the Defendant filed a complaint under Article 1-B(1).