1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company that promotes solar power generation projects in the C Group at the time of residence.

B. The Defendant is the head of the Ri, and is the chairperson of the Committee against the establishment of solar power generation.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Eul evidence 1-2, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) The Defendant removed the banner of the “project presentation meeting” set up by the Plaintiff in the vicinity of the community hall, and ② spreaded to the residents without any grounds that solar power infrastructure is harmful, ③ prevent the residents from having contacted with the Plaintiff, and instructed or forced the residents to return the “public opinion polls on residents’ opinions” signed.

(2) The defendant is obligated to compensate for the business expenses incurred by the plaintiff.

As part of the damages, 20 million won is claimed.

(b) The facts below are without dispute between the parties, or can be acknowledged by the purport of Gap evidence 1-1-2, Gap evidence 3-2, Eul evidence 1-1-2, Eul evidence 1-2 and all pleadings.

In light of the facts, it is insufficient to recognize that the defendant illegally interfered with the plaintiff's business even after considering the evidence submitted.

The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant committed a tort is without merit.

① On January 23, 2018, Plaintiff E and F sought residents’ signature at the Driri community hall and in a document seeking opinions on the installation of solar power plants.

② At that time, the Defendant, in telephone conversations with F, stated that “villages have expressed their opinions that they oppose all, so they did not conduct a public opinion poll, and the signed document should tear.”

Village Residents G and H have received a signed document.

③ The Plaintiff accused the Defendant as the crime of interference with business.

During the investigation process, G and H stated that “a document (not returned to the Plaintiff’s side) is not recovered under the direction of (Defendant).”

E, F.I.D.