1. The part against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant B is revoked, and the plaintiff as to the revoked part against the defendant B.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant Company for equipment input (referring to the construction of concrete crushing and waste scraping with a scooters; hereinafter “instant construction”) among the works for removing the D hotel located in Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu, as well as the construction of the instant construction by May 21, 2013 (hereinafter “instant contract”).

B. Around June 6, 2013, the Plaintiff intended to remove the digging machines used by the Plaintiff for the instant construction at the construction site. However, against the intent of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff did not remove the MFX225S rackers and FEC 140B rackers (hereinafter “each of the instant digging machines”).

C. On October 3, 2013, the Plaintiff carried out each of the instant excavation devices at the construction site of this case.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 6-3 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s primary claim No. 1) Defendant B, a business director of the Defendant Company, and the persons ordered by the Defendant Company, assault and intimidation the Plaintiff on June 6, 2013 at the site of the instant construction, thereby preventing the Plaintiff from taking out each of the instant excavation machines, and thereafter preventing the Plaintiff from taking out each of the instant excavation machines.

Accordingly, from June 6, 2013 to October 3, 2013, the Plaintiff suffered losses of KRW 128 million, which is the amount equivalent to the revenue of the rent for each of the search and seizures in this case, between the construction site in this case and the removal of each of the search and seizures in this case from the construction site in this case.

B) On the other hand, Defendant B damaged the EX225 ls during each of the excavation machines in the instant case, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 3,252,80 to the repair cost. C) Accordingly, Defendant B was a tort, and the Defendant Company jointly as the employer of the Defendant B, and jointly paid the Plaintiff the above KRW 131,252,80 (= KRW 128 million) and the delay damages therefrom.