1. The Defendant shall pay KRW 50,00 to the Plaintiff KRW 50,00 per annum from July 27, 2014 to July 6, 2015 and the next day.

1. Summary of the cause of claim;

A. The Plaintiff, as a resident of the Defendant’s side, has conflicted with the Defendant due to noise problems. On July 27, 2014, at the latest night, the Plaintiff demanded that the Defendant cause noise due to the use of a computer, etc., and that the Defendant would be able to assist the Defendant. As the Defendant was placed in the Plaintiff’s front door door and a crime prevention window, the Plaintiff’s faces the Plaintiff’s face.

B. The defendant's above A.

The plaintiff suffered total damages of KRW 28,712,164 due to the illegal acts, as follows, and the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for such damages:

① On July 28, 2014, upon receipt of notice of the result of a criminal case complaint from July 28, 2014, the following day after the Defendant’s act, the Plaintiff was unable to engage in his/her occupation as a member of his/her livelihood by not later than February 5, 2015, and during that period, wages should be calculated as KRW 98,272 per day agricultural labor wages of adults.

[98,272 won 】 187 days]. (2) Medical expenses: 85,300 won: 250,000 won for the repair of a crime prevention window (including a impulse network): 250,000 won.

2. Determination

A. The basic facts are acknowledged by the following facts: (a) the Plaintiff resided in C Apartment 305, 1201, and 305, and the Defendant resides in C Apartment 305, 1201, the next house; (b) the above C Apartment is in the structure of the so-called hallway-type apartment; (c) the Plaintiff was working as a taxi engineer and was in suspension of business to prepare for the business; and (d) there was a conflict between the Plaintiff and the Defendant due to noise problems; (b) evidence No. 5, No. 10, No. 10, No. 1-1, No. 3, and the purport of the entire pleadings

B. On July 27, 2014, the judgment of 1 on the claim for the cost of repairing the crime prevention windows and the shocking network was made by the Defendant 1 on the ground that the Plaintiff and the noise problem were destroyed by eating the shocking net owned by the Plaintiff at the Plaintiff’s home, and the fact that the cost of KRW 50,000 is spent at the cost of repairing the shocking network is not in dispute between the parties, or is written in Gap evidence 4 and Eul evidence 3.