1. The plaintiff's appeal and the plaintiff's claim expanded in the trial are dismissed, respectively.

2. Demanding and expanding the costs of appeal.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff was judged as having a disability third degree due to brain disease, and the Defendant, as a caregiver belonging to the C Elderly Welfare Center, was in charge of medical care and protection of the Plaintiff from August 13, 2013 to April 18, 2014.

B. The plaintiff proposed that the defendant promptly compensates for the amount of the flag, but the plaintiff rejected it and sent a warning to the defendant that he would enter his house.

Nevertheless, around June 1, 2014, the defendant opened a password of the plaintiff's house and intruded the plaintiff's house.

C. Accordingly, on July 22, 2014, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 500,000 (No. 2014 high-end 4969) from the Busan District Court’s Branch Branch Branch on the same criminal facts as above, and around that time, the said summary order became final and conclusive as is.

【Grounds for Recognition】 The descriptions of Evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, and Eul Nos. 3, 4, and 7 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. On June 1, 2014 or June 2, 2014, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 3 million for mental damage of the Plaintiff caused by intrusion upon the Plaintiff’s house without permission, KRW 150,000,000 for the production and duplication of a record, KRW 300,000 for the production and duplication of a record, KRW 300,000 for the collection of a record, KRW 220,000 for the transfer to the court of first instance, the public prosecutor’s office, the police station, etc., KRW 30,000 for the return of money left by the Defendant, KRW 385,000 for the purchase of a record, KRW 1550,00

B. For seven months of the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant’s medical care and protection was carried out on March 2014, which was laundry and launded on a laund, and the Defendant did not have any intention or negligence on the part of the Defendant, due to the fact that milch with a long-term product did not support the weight of laund.

However, although the defendant had purchased a new building stand at C Elderly Welfare Center, the plaintiff refused to receive it, and the defendant also refused to receive it.