1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 2008, the Plaintiff is a resident living in the instant apartment complex, moving into the Busan Metropolitan City Building (hereinafter “instant apartment complex”) which was located in Busan Metropolitan City around August 2008.

B. Around that time, the Defendant assumed charge of the secretary of the council of occupants’ representatives of the instant apartment from June 2014 to November 201, 2016.

C. From 2009, among the Plaintiff and the Defendant, a number of civil and criminal disputes were continued between the two issues regarding apartment management methods.

On May 31, 2016, the Defendant filed a complaint with the Shipping Police Station on the charge of obstruction of business with regard to eight occupants, including the Plaintiff, in the name of the council of occupants' representatives of the apartment of this case, on or around May 31, 2016, on the charge of interfering with business.

E. On June 17, 2016, the Defendant: (a) at the Maritime Police Station, “Around June 17, 2016, the Defendant arbitrarily removed the written public notice of the complainants; (b) attached an unlawful public notice (Interference with business); (c) obstructed the proceedings of the complainants by force at the management office around June 5, 2016; (d) arbitrarily damaged the devices for the trial of the complainants; (e) stolen the internal documents, etc. of the complainants inside the management office inside the management office; and (e) stolen and attempted them (Interference with business, special larceny, etc.); and (e) attached an official document that was made by misrepresenting the complainants (f) and submitted an additional public notice.”

(F) On May 31, 2017, the prosecutor who investigated the instant case by Busan District Prosecutors’ Office (hereinafter “instant additional complaint”). On the other hand, on May 31, 2017, he/she applied for a summary order of KRW 500,00,00 for a fine for negligence due to the obstruction of business by six residents including the Plaintiff and the charge of attempted special larceny (defluence of evidence).

[Reasons for Recognition] There is no dispute;