1. The Plaintiff’s appeal against the Defendants and the Defendant’s claim for medical expenses expanded in the trial.

1. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was elected as the representative of the 13 constituency (112 Dong, 113 Dong Dong) at the 6th election of the representative of the building in Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

However, the election commission of the apartment house council of this case revoked the election of the representative of the Dong without any authority.

After that, around 18:00 on July 30, 2013, the Plaintiff was placed at a conference room to attend the meeting of the council of occupants' representatives of the instant apartment complex as a representative of each building. However, the first instance court’s joint Defendant F, G, H, I, J, K, K, and L, the security guards of the first instance court, when the Defendant B, the president of the council of occupants’ representatives, and the representative director of the N Co., Ltd managing the instant apartment complex, were at the time of the front chest, side gate, etc. in order to prevent the Plaintiff from attending the council of occupants’ representatives pursuant to the orders of the Defendant C, etc., who is the representative director of the N Co., Ltd. managing the instant apartment complex, and thereby, the Plaintiff suffered from the injury of the “the escape of 5th page 5” and the “the escape of conical signboards

Therefore, the Defendants jointly have the obligation to jointly pay to the Plaintiff the sum of KRW 40 million (the sum of the sum of active and passive damages and consolation money sought by the Plaintiff, and the sum of each amount dissatisfied with the appeal and the medical expenses expanded in the trial (affirmative damages)) and the damages for delay from July 30, 2013, which is the date of the above assault, to the Plaintiff.

(2) Income of 15 million won (1.5 million won x 10 months x 10 months) which is lost due to replacing a person with another person without direct care of the postnatal care of his/her married couple

2. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the judgment are as follows: 4-9, 12-12-5, 5-11-2 of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and 4-14-2 of the defendant's security guards.