1. As to the Plaintiff KRW 5,00,000 and KRW 3,000,00 among them, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 5,00,000 from April 25, 2017.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff and the defendant are residents of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government apartment, and the plaintiff served as the representative of the above apartment building and served as the representative of the reconstruction promotion committee, and the defendant served as the member of the reconstruction promotion committee.

B. At around 9:30 on June 22, 2016, the Defendant: (a) opened the reconstruction association office of the above apartment building; (b) on the ground that the Plaintiff, who was in charge of accounting affairs, was frequently with ordinary members and the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff was unable to perform his/her duties; (c) extracted a cable of the books and computers, etc. used by the Plaintiff; and (d) obstructed the Plaintiff’s accounting affairs by force by taking odor out of the office; (b) around July 25, 2018, the Defendant received a request for a summary order of KRW 500,000 from the Seoul Southern District Prosecutors’ Office to pay a fine.

C. At around 14:00 on June 23, 2016, the Plaintiff was indicted on the facts charged that the office of the reconstruction association of the above apartment building held D on the ground that D would make a false statement, and caused damage to D’s left part by means of plastic files, etc., which require D’s treatment for about 2 weeks, and the Defendant was tried on April 25, 2017 as Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2016No5073. (2) The Defendant appeared and taken an oath as a witness of the above judgment on April 25, 2017, and testified that “the Defendant was accompanied by the documents on the bee color file, but caused the file to be sealed.” The Defendant testified that D was guilty of the above facts constituting the crime.

3. The defendant appeared as a witness on January 18, 2018 at the Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2017No1127, the appellate court of the above case, and testified that "the defendant did not directly see the appearance of the defendant D, reported D's multi-child form later, and confirmed that the defendant was son." The plaintiff was acquitted on the above criminal facts.