beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff:
A. Defendant D and Defendant E jointly, KRW 123,770,00,00, and those related thereto from October 1, 2016 to November 1, 2016.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The status of the parties is the owner of 14 units of reinforced concrete structure collective housing (multi-family housing) 14 units (multi-family housing) with 8 floors in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu (hereinafter “instant apartment complex”). Defendant B is the managing director of G Co., Ltd. (former trade name: H Co., Ltd.; hereinafter “G”); Defendant C’s head of G’s headquarters; Defendant D’s representative, and Defendant E’s employee.
B. On July 14, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a construction contract with G during the construction period from July 14, 2011 to December 2, 2011, with respect to the construction of the instant apartment, with respect to the construction of the instant apartment, with the construction period of KRW 1,923,00,000. (2) G notified the Plaintiff that the construction contract was terminated on August 7, 2012, and the Plaintiff sent a peremptory notice to the effect that G would accept the notification of termination of the contract on September 20, 2012.
C. On January 31, 2012, the Plaintiff completed the registration of initial ownership relating to the instant apartment on January 31, 2012. On the other hand, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against I et al. on his possession of the real estate owned by the Plaintiff and won the judgment (Ulsan District Court Decision 2013Da9634, 9634, 2014dan12071, 2014dan 1646). 2) Based on the above judgment, the Plaintiff completed the delivery execution on March 9, 2015 and March 23, 2015.
On November 18, 2015, the Ulsan District Court rendered a criminal judgment against the Defendants: “The Defendants jointly removed and damaged the locking devices of the instant real estate on April 30, 2015, and interfered with the apartment management by preventing access of the Plaintiff, etc. to each real estate listed in attached Table Nos. 201 (real estate listed in attached Table No. 1), 202 (real estate listed in attached Table No. 2), and 401 (real estate listed in attached Table No. 4; hereinafter referred to as each real estate listed in attached Table Nos. 1, 2, and 4)” which was used by the Plaintiff as the office; thus, it interfered with the apartment management by preventing access of the Plaintiff, etc. to Defendant B and Defendant C, respectively.