The appeal by the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant).

the purport and purpose of the claim;

In the first instance trial, the plaintiff and the defendant claimed against each other for the payment of consolation money on the ground of tort, and both the principal claim and the counterclaim were dismissed.

Since only the plaintiff filed an appeal, only the plaintiff's main claim is subject to the judgment of this court.

Basic Facts

On August 23, 2017, around 19:20 on August 23, 2017, the Plaintiff used hot water used for apartment occupants within the agency room of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Nowon-gu apartment management office without permission.

1) On September 1, 2017, Defendant, the resident of the above apartment, and nine other (hereinafter “Defendant et al.”) (hereinafter “Defendant et al.”) without permission, entered the institution room of the above apartment management office of the apartment complex, which is an area where access was prohibited in order to use hot water for personal promptness and shower, etc.; by stealing the number of the resident’s property, etc., thereby causing property damage to the resident, the Plaintiff filed a complaint with the occupant (hereinafter “the instant complaint”).

2) On November 14, 2017, the Plaintiff received a non-prosecution disposition against the charge of larceny (Seoul Northern District Prosecutors’ Office No. 2017, No. 47883; hereinafter “non-prosecution disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff did not have any awareness of theft by the Seoul Northern District Prosecutors’ Office.

Meanwhile, on November 23, 2017, the Plaintiff suffered mental suffering due to the instant complaint.

On May 1, 2018, Seoul Northern District Court 2017Gadan26116 filed a lawsuit of consolation money against the defendant et al., and the above court rendered a judgment dismissing all the plaintiff's claims on May 1, 2018, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on May 25, 2018.

1) The Defendant et al. appealed to the Seoul High Public Prosecutor’s Office (hereinafter “Seoul High Public Prosecutor’s Office”) and filed a complaint with the Seoul High Public Prosecutor’s Office. As a result, on June 15, 2018, “the point of intrusion on a structure” was erroneous in the judgment, and on the ground that “the point of infringement on a structure” was either misunderstanding the legal doctrine,