1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 7, 2016, C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) leased the E and F (hereinafter “instant land”) from the Driuri Residents’ Association for a period of 30 years, and subsequently, the construction of a shooting range, factory, etc. (hereinafter “instant construction”) was carried out on the ground. The Plaintiff contracted the said construction from November 28, 2017 and started the construction from December 2017.

B. However, on April 22, 2018, the Defendant was convicted of a fine of KRW 3 million on July 9, 2019 at the resident support of the Daegu District Court located in the Daegu District Court, on the criminal fact that: (a) the Defendant installed a blocking blocking the passage of vehicles with a height of 3.15 meters and a width of 4 meters on the ground of door-si G (hereinafter “instant road”); and (b) thereby, the Defendant obstructed the instant construction by obstructing the Plaintiff’s passage of ready-mixed vehicles, pumps, and 25 tons of trucks, etc.; and (c) was convicted of a fine of KRW 3 million on July 9, 2019.

(Supreme Court Decision 2018Gohap89). The defendant appealed but the appeal was dismissed.

(Seoul District Court Decision 2019No2793 Decided July 9, 2020). (See Supreme Court Decision 2019No2793 Decided the above judgment, the Defendant filed a new appeal against the above judgment) / [Grounds for recognition] Items A through 7, 9, 11, and Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The plaintiff's assertion that it was impossible to enter the plaintiff's ready-mixeds and pumps due to the plaintiff's unlawful act of interfering with road traffic, thereby causing losses to the plaintiff, and thus, the defendant is obliged to pay the plaintiff the amount stated in the claim as compensation for damages.

3. According to the above facts, it is recognized that the defendant interfered with the plaintiff's construction work of this case by obstructing access to ready-mixeds, pumps, etc. on the road of this case, which constitutes one-way tort.

However, each statement of Gap evidence Nos. 8, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 (including paper numbers) shall cause property damage to the plaintiff due to the above illegal act of the defendant.