1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant ordering payment in excess of the amount which orders payment below.

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the whole pleadings in each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 3.

(1) The Plaintiff filed a civil petition with the purport that CCTV installed by the Defendant is in violation of the Plaintiff’s privacy as the CCTV belongs to the Plaintiff’s house.

(2) The Defendant, at around 00:40 on September 10, 2013, protested against the above civil petition filing at the Plaintiff’s house located in Yangsan-si, and did not comply with the Plaintiff’s demand of the Plaintiff to leave the Plaintiff’s son, but did not go from the Plaintiff’s home until the police officer dispatched by the Plaintiff’s report at around 01:00 on the same day arrives.

(3) The Defendant was indicted for non-compliance with the above act, and received a summary order of KRW 300,000 by this Court approximately 2013 High Court Decision 13919, and the above summary order became final and conclusive around that time.

B. In light of the empirical rule, it is obvious that the plaintiff suffered mental suffering due to the defendant's refusal to leave the defendant, and therefore, the defendant is obliged to give monetary compensation.

I would like to say.

As to the amount of consolation money to be paid by the defendant, in full view of all the circumstances such as the health team, the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant, the background leading up to the refusal to leave, the time and time when the refusal to leave was made, and the attitude of the defendant's act while the defendant was not complied with, it is reasonable to determine the amount of consolation money to be paid by the defendant as 50

2. Thus, the defendant's conclusion is that the plaintiff's 50,000 won and its corresponding amount of 20% per annum under the Civil Act from September 10, 2013, which is the date of the tort in this case, to July 15, 2015, which is deemed reasonable for the defendant to resist the existence and scope of the obligation, and 5% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the date of full payment.