1. The plaintiff (appointed party)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party).

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Selection C is the owner of the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F 195 square meters (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Plaintiff, the Selection D, and E are residing in the above domicile.

The defendant has a 1/2 share of the 94m2 of the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government G massing (hereinafter referred to as the "Defendant's land") adjacent to the plaintiff's land, and resides in the above domicile.

B. If the Plaintiff and the designated parties (hereinafter “the Plaintiffs”) invaded the Plaintiff’s land, the Defendant’s housing on the ground of the Defendant’s land, and the pents, etc. installed by the Defendant, a dispute arose and the dispute between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant occurred frequently.

C. Around May 2014, the Defendant installed two CCTV cameras in which the Plaintiffs reside in the housing located on the Defendant’s land.

The defendant removed CCTV Kameras

As the Gu refused, the Plaintiffs filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant seeking compensation for damages, and the Defendant removed one CCTV camera, which is wholly able to see the Plaintiffs’ Housing Mara around December 2014 during the instant lawsuit. On February 14, 2015, one of the remaining CCTV camera, which can be seen as part of the Plaintiffs’ Housing Mara, was removed.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, each entry or video of Gap's 1 to 3, and 12 (including the branch numbers if the branch numbers are attached) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant established two CCTV cameras that can see the closing of the housing in which the plaintiffs reside, thereby infringing upon the plaintiffs' privacy, and the defendant's above act in light of the circumstances surrounding the dispute between the plaintiffs and the defendant shall be deemed to be unlawful.

Therefore, the defendant has a duty to compensate the plaintiffs for mental damage, and the amount of consolation money is the relation between the plaintiffs and the defendant, the details of the dispute between the plaintiffs and the defendant, and the defendant removed the CCTV camera.