1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff jointly operated the “G stores” (hereinafter referred to as the “G”) in the Goyang-dong-si E and F (hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”) owned by the Defendant B.

However, Defendant B unilaterally notified the Plaintiff of the termination of the partnership agreement, and accordingly, several civil lawsuits are pending in relation to the termination and settlement of the partnership agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant B.

Defendant B unilaterally changed the security company’s name of the instant building and replaced the key room to prevent the Plaintiff from having access to the instant building in a situation where the Plaintiff is pending in the lawsuit, as seen above, around January 2017.

On the other hand, Co., Ltd. is the company that leased the instant building from Defendant B, and Defendant D is the company that carried out the removal work of interior and all kinds of collection equipment in the instant building.

As above, there remains a problem of settlement following the termination of the partnership agreement between the Plaintiff and Defendant B, and thus, it is jointly owned by the Plaintiff and Defendant B. However, Defendant B and Defendant C ordered Defendant D to arbitrarily remove the interior and interior of the pertinent “G” building owned by others, thereby causing property damage and damage, and Defendant D arbitrarily removed the interior and collection of the interior and equipment owned by others, thereby impairing its utility.

Therefore, the defendants are joint tortfeasors under Article 750 of the Civil Act that damages the plaintiff's property intentionally or by negligence. Therefore, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the plaintiff the damages as stated in the purport of the claim.

2. The Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants is without merit, even if the Defendants jointly destroyed the interior and gymical art owned by the Plaintiff, as otherwise alleged by the Plaintiff, since there is no proof as to the amount of damages caused by the damage.

3...