logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.06.08 2016나71041
변호사선임비
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

The defendant.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff served as the president of the council of occupants’ representatives from February 2, 2011 to February 2, 2015 (hereinafter “B apartment”).

B. Around 2011, the Plaintiff served as the president of the Council of Residents' Representatives of B Apartments, there was a dispute over the passage of apartment complexes between B, the council of occupants' representatives, and Nonparty C, the owner of adjacent apartment buildings.

C. During the dispute, C filed a lawsuit against the council of occupants' representatives against B, but the provisional disposition against traffic obstruction was dismissed, and C’s lawsuit against traffic obstruction prohibition was terminated upon withdrawal of C’s lawsuit.

Since then, the Plaintiff was accused of criminal trial due to business obstruction and traffic obstruction by C (hereinafter “instant criminal trial”), and the content thereof: ① “The Plaintiff and Co-Defendant D conspired with C to lock the iron door door, which is installed on the road that should undergo to go to land E in Suwon-si, which is a new construction site of the building site of C, with the lock door, and Defendant A (Plaintiff) ordered the management office of the Plaintiff to install the access road to the access road at the site of H and G land located at the site of the construction site of the said construction site of G with a width of 2 meters and a width of 12 meters, and to install the door door 12 meters in height at the boundary area of H land, and to prevent the Plaintiff from entering the construction site of the said pent, thereby obstructing C’s construction work by force; ② around January 1, 2015, the Plaintiff installed the access road to the site of H and J multi-family house with the entrance of the victim’s office of management office, and installed the access road between 15 and 217.5.7.

The plaintiff is at the above trial.

arrow