1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On June 29, 2016, the purport of the Plaintiff’s claim was to establish a welfare facility for the aged (the medical care center; hereinafter “instant medical care center”) on the land of the wife population C, which was subject to construction permission and deliberation on urban planning around the following day.

However, around July 2016, the Defendant asserted that the instant medical care center was a suspected facility and forced residents to sign the objection to the new medical care center, and threatened and threatened the Plaintiff.

In addition, the plaintiff tried to consult with the defendant on the new construction works or cost, but the defendant refused to hold a consultation and opposed to the construction of any facility on the above land, the plaintiff eventually renounced the new construction works for which construction permission was granted.

Due to the above illegal acts by the defendant, the plaintiff suffered damages of KRW 93,454,00 in total, KRW 21,454,080 in total, and KRW 72,00 in consolation money.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the above damages.

2. The defendant asserts that the lawsuit of this case is unlawful as it is filed against a person who is not qualified as the defendant, since 30 or more local residents living in the wife B are only the local governments where 30 or more local residents live in the wife B, and the civil petition that the plaintiff raised is filed with the consent of the residents B.

However, in a lawsuit for performance, a person claiming the performance is qualified as the plaintiff, and the person claiming the performance from the plaintiff as the performance obligor is qualified as the defendant, and the existence or absence of the party's standing is based on the plaintiff's assertion itself. It does not require the plaintiff to be actually responsible for performance or the defendant to be actually responsible for performance, but it is only a reason to determine whether the performance claim or the performance obligation is actually responsible for performance, and it is not a matter to be determined as the existence of the party's standing before the merits

3. The evidence presented by the Plaintiff as to the merits is alone.