1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff was a resident of Daegu Seo-gu apartment (hereinafter “instant apartment”) around 2011, and the Defendant is the council of occupants’ representatives of the said apartment.

B. On August 6, 201, from around 23:25 to 23:35, the Plaintiff repeatedly passed the instant apartment complex entrance blocking machine (hereinafter “instant blocking machine”).

C. At the above temporary closure, the glass servers, etc. were destroyed, and 1.3 million won was required for the repair cost.

The Defendant filed an application for the instant payment order against the Plaintiff to pay KRW 1.3 million for restoration expenses (hereinafter “instant payment order”) with the Seogu District Court Branch Branch of Seogu District Court (2014Da1660). The said payment order was finalized on July 1, 2014 due to the Plaintiff’s failure to raise an objection after receiving the payment order.

E. On January 29, 2016, the Defendant filed an application for the seizure and collection order against the deposit claims held by the Plaintiff against the Daegu Bank, Daegu District Court (Seoul District Court Branch Branch 2016TTTT985) as the claim source of the instant payment order. On January 29, 2016, the said court rendered a ruling of citing the seizure and collection of the said claim.

F. After that, the Defendant filed a complaint against the Plaintiff on charges of causing special property damage, etc., and on December 26, 2016, the Western District Prosecutors' Office of the Daegu District Prosecutors' Office rendered a disposition of non-prosecution against the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Defendant appealed from the Daegu High Prosecutors' Office No. 2017 High Prosecutors' Office No. 2017, Dec. 22, 2017, but the Defendant appealed from the High Prosecutors' Office of

(hereinafter referred to as "related case"). [Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute over the above criminal case, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff alleged by the parties does not have any damage to the blocking machine of this case, and thus compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case is enforced.