1. The defendant shall not visit the place indicated in the separate sheet No. 1 against the plaintiff's will.

2. The defendant.

1. The description of the grounds for the claim is as shown in attached Form 2;

2. Article 208 (3) 1 of the Civil Procedure Act of the applicable provisions of Acts;

3. The Plaintiff seeking access prohibition against the Defendant and also seek indirect compulsory performance.

However, the compulsory execution against the non-performance obligation, which is an incidental obligation, can only be indirectly enforced, and the decision of indirect compulsory execution is a principle to order certain compensation in the event of non-performance of obligation through a separate examination of the debtor upon a separate request of the creditor after the execution title has been established in the judgment procedure.

Therefore, in a judgment procedure to establish an enforcement title with respect to an obligation of omission, indirect compulsory performance should be made in preparation for a case where an obligor fails to perform his/her obligation, even if the enforcement title ordering an obligation of omission, considering it as at the time of the closing of argument in the litigation procedure concerning the obligation of omission, is established, it is probable that the obligor may violate it within a short period, and the pertinent amount of compensation ordered under Article 261 of

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da31225, May 29, 2014). In the instant case, it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant is highly likely to violate the enforcement title, even if the enforcement title was established only with the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, even if the enforcement title was established.

Therefore, the part of the plaintiff's indirect compulsory performance is without merit.