beta
Text
1. The defendant succeeding intervenor's application for intervention shall be dismissed;
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. The cost of the lawsuit.
Reasons
1. On May 17, 2016, the Plaintiff: (a) received a successful bid of 24,646 square meters of D forest in North-gu, Northern-gu (hereinafter “instant forest”) in the course of exercising the right of retention by installing and occupying containers, etc.; and (b) completed the registration of ownership transfer on his/her own on May 20, 2016.
Plaintiff
On June 16, 2016, the representative director E forced removal of the entrance door on the instant forest land installed by the Defendant, thereby destroying the entrance door equivalent to KRW 1,566,980 at the market price. On June 17, 2016, the representative director moved containers installed inside the Defendant to another place to exercise the right of retention, installed warning doors to prevent the Defendant from entering the entrance of the access road, and obstructed the Defendant’s exercise of the right of retention by preventing the Defendant from having access by installing CCTVs and installing steel fences, etc.
(E) On June 30, 2016, the Daegu District Court Branch Decision 2016 High Court Decision 201Da4672 issued a summary order of KRW 3,00,000 with respect to the crime of causing property damage and the crime of interference with business, which became final and conclusive. On June 30, 2016, the Defendant re-enters the forest of this case into the forest of this case, and installed the structures and containers, etc. assembled with the stone mentioned in paragraph (a) of Article 1 of the purport of the claim, and
Since the above, the Defendant: (a) installed a gate to prevent the Defendant from entering the forest of this case; and (b) again filed a complaint against the Defendant for the crime of interference with business; (c) on January 9, 2017, the above case agreed that “A suspect E does not have the correction device of the gate installed in the forest of this case; (d) is allowed to freely enter the forest of this case; and (e) is allowed to freely enter the forest of this case; and (e) the Defendant managed the container while freely entering the forest of this case.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 5, Eul evidence 2 through 4, the result of the on-site inspection by this court, the purport of whole pleadings
2. The plaintiff.