1. The Defendants jointly do so to the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) as to KRW 6,556,848 and its amount from March 25, 2015 to October 15, 2020.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff and the Claimant D are married couple.

Defendant B is the actual operator of F, who is the representative director of E, and Defendant C is the director of E, a corporation.

B. At around 13:50 on March 25, 2015, the Defendants found the Plaintiff’s house located in Gangseo-gun G, Gangwon-gu, which was engaged in the work related to the camping site construction with the Defendants, as the Plaintiff’s house in order to resisting the said work only, and infringed upon the Plaintiff’s house without the Plaintiff’s permission, and inflicted injury on the Plaintiff, such as a cage cage cage bage fage fages, etc., which require approximately 4 weeks of treatment. Upon receipt of the Plaintiff’s report, the Defendants detained the Plaintiff for approximately 25 minutes until the police officer dispatched to the Plaintiff arrives.

C. On October 1, 2015, the Defendants were from the Maggu District Court Branch Branch of the Daegu District Court (2015 High Court Decision 4052).

The summary order of each fine of KRW 3 million was notified due to the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. due to joint injury, joint residence, joint confinement, and joint confinement, and the above summary order was finalized on October 13, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 38, 39, 72, Eul evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. According to the above facts finding as to the plaintiff's claim, the defendants' act of intrusion upon the plaintiff's residence and causing injury to the plaintiff and confinement of the plaintiff constitutes a tort. Thus, the defendants are liable to compensate for the damages suffered by the plaintiff as a joint tortfeasor.

B. The Appointor D’s claim sought payment of the amount stated in the claim, alleging that the Defendants suffered from drug addiction, depression, and neutal infection due to the Defendants’ tort against the Plaintiff, and that the Defendants suffered damages, such as medical expenses, transportation expenses, lost income, consolation money, etc., but the damage claimed by the Appointor D solely based on the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, and the tort in this case.