1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) brought the principal lawsuit and the trial of the instant case.

Basic Facts

The plaintiff and the defendant are each spouse, and they have been convered with each other.

On December 10, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for provisional injunction against access by the Seogu District Court Branch Decision 2014Kahap181, and on January 14, 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendant rendered a ruling of recommending reconciliation with the purport that “the Plaintiff and the Defendant shall not access or contact the surrounding areas against the other party and his/her family’s will, and shall pay 500,000 won per time of the violation if they violate this,” which became final and conclusive around that time.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence No. 1, Eul No. 11-2, each entry of Evidence No. 11-2, this court's significant facts, and party's assertion and judgment as to the whole pleading

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff is the Plaintiff’s wife: (a) the Defendant sent phone calls or text messages from time to time to time to time to the Plaintiff’s wife; (b) sought not only the Plaintiff’s house but also the Plaintiff’s house and the company interfere with the peace and business of its home, thereby violating the above duty of prohibition of access; and (c) thus, the Plaintiff claimed compensation for damages (i.e., KRW 20,000,000 x

On the other hand, the defendant did not violate the duty of no access due to the lack of access against the plaintiff's will. Since the plaintiff also violated the duty of no access by sending text messages to the defendant, the plaintiff sought payment of 5,00,000 won as a counterclaim and damages for delay.

B. Determination ex officio is that there is no interest in legal action in respect of the legitimacy of the counterclaim raised in the principal lawsuit and in the trial of the case of this case, and in addition to ordinary lawsuits, there is no interest in legal action, and the decision of recommending settlement between the plaintiff and the defendant is an independent executive title ordering monetary compensation as a sanction against the non-performance of the obligation of omission by the plaintiff and the defendant. Thus, the creditor is to enforce compulsory execution if there is a fact that the obligor has violated the obligation