2. All remaining claims of the Plaintiff are dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be five minutes and one of them shall be borne by the plaintiff and the other by the defendants.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The following facts may be acknowledged by considering Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2 (the same as Gap evidence 8-6), Eul evidence 3 (the same as Eul evidence 8-5), Eul evidence 4, Eul evidence 5 (the same as Eul evidence 1), Gap evidence 6-1, 2, Gap evidence 7, Gap evidence 8-7, 9, 10, 11, Gap evidence 9, Eul evidence 10-1, 2, Eul evidence 3, Eul evidence 6-5-5 (excluding the part excluded from the subsequent ones), and the whole purport of the arguments in the testimony of Kim Jong-man, and contrary to this, it is difficult to record Eul evidence 8-8, Eul evidence 5-5, Eul evidence 6-4 and evidence 6-5-6-5 of the evidence 6-5.

A. In substance, the Cheongcheon-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City 5-dong 1426-12, Cheongcheon-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City 5-dong 1426 (hereinafter referred to as the “nivers of this case”) is registered as the owner of the instantnivers’ ownership, or the Plaintiff was not the owner of the instantnivers’ ownership, but the registration was made.

B. On April 20, 1992, the Plaintiff: (a) the Plaintiff leased the instant loan out of the Defendant Abuseist who was represented by the Defendant on April 20, 1992 (However, the lessor indicated otherwise as the Defendant’s right and one person; (b) the said loan out of KRW 70,00,00; (c) monthly rent 1,80,000; and (d) the lease period from May 12, 199 to KRW 1 year; and (b) around that time, the Plaintiff operated the instant loan out of the Plaintiff’s order under the name of the proprietor and operated the said order. On July 2, 1992, the Plaintiff became subject to a disposition of business suspension on the grounds that two male and female guests, who were accommodated in the said female house, were identified as the minor and became familiar with the authority.

C. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff, at the request of the Nonparty, shall use the right of operation of the instant leisure pool to the Nonparty for more than 00 won. Around August 25 of the same year, the Nonparty and the Defendant Abused Co., Ltd. entered into a new lease agreement with the said Defendant by acquiring the Plaintiff’s right of lease from around September 5 of the same year, and from around September 20 of the same year, the damages that the Nonparty would incur due to the non-party’s failure to operate the instant leisure pool during the period of business suspension that would have come up to the future due to the above minor’s divorce, shall be paid by the Plaintiff, and the amount of damages that the Plaintiff would incur to the non-party during the period of business suspension that would have become up to 0 months. The amount of damages that the Plaintiff would have been 00 won for 1,800 won, 00 won, 70,000 won, 200 won, 30 months, 20 months, 30 months, and 40 months, respectively.

D. Around September 5, 200 of the same year, the non-party was ordered to operate the instant leisure hall after being ordered to do so (However, the actual operation of a leisure hall was entrusted to the non-party's wife and the non-party's wife, Kim Jong-soo, his birth, etc.). The plaintiff received only KRW 65,00,000,000, excluding the amount of KRW 5,000,000, which was the remainder of the above defendant's custody on behalf of the non-party, in accordance with the above agreement, as the plaintiff was returned the deposit from the abuse of the defendant on the above date. On the other hand, the above defendant prepared and received cash custody (Evidence 2) to keep the amount of KRW 5,00,000,000 for the above purpose.

E. After September 20 of the same year, the disposition of business suspension was rendered on or around September 20 of the same year, and the period was determined from September 28 of the same year to November 27 of the same year as originally anticipated, and accordingly, the non-party received the above amount deposited by the plaintiff from the defendant abuse victim and appropriated it for the above damages (However, the above amount was deducted from KRW 5,000,000 from KRW 2,00,000,000, which the non-party is obligated to pay to the defendants, and thus, the amount actually received by the non-party is KRW 3,00,000,000).

F. However, as seen earlier, the above amount that the Plaintiff kept for Defendant 2 for the above 0-month suspension period, 00 won for the above 0-month suspension period, and 0-month suspension period for the above 0-month suspension period, the Plaintiff did not have to pay to the Nonparty any money of the nature that should be paid to the Defendants, and 0-month suspension period for the above 0-month suspension period for the above 0-month suspension period, and the Plaintiff did not have to pay damages to the Defendants ( even if the disposition of suspension of business is issued, the Nonparty would be unable to operate the business for that period, and even if the Nonparty did not do so for that period, the Defendants would not have any damages to the Defendants as much as they would have been 0-month suspension period for the above 0-month suspension period for the above 0-month suspension period for the above 0-month suspension period for the above 0-month suspension period for the above 0-month suspension period for the Defendant 20-month suspension period for the above 0-month suspension period for the above 10-month suspension period for the above 20-month period;

G. On February 26 of the same year, the plaintiff served a written complaint of the above lawsuit, but the date of the summons, etc. was not served on the wind who was employed in the business. Accordingly, the party member proceeded with the above lawsuit after sending it to the plaintiff, and rendered a favorable judgment that accepted all the claims of the plaintiff who was the plaintiff not the plaintiff's rights. When the original copy of the above judgment is impossible to be served, the above judgment became final and conclusive at that time [the plaintiff filed a subsequent appeal against the above judgment, but all the appeals were dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff was responsible for the damages to the plaintiff as to the period of appeal (see Supreme Court Decision 93Da62607, Mar. 8, 1994; Supreme Court Decision 93Da62607, Mar. 8, 1994; Supreme Court Decision 3084, Mar. 8, 1994; and 3081,305,3851, etc.

2. Determination:

A. According to the above facts, even if a disposition of business suspension has been issued against the plaintiff, the defendants shall be held liable for damages sustained by the plaintiff as joint tortfeasor because they knew that they did not have the right to claim damages against the plaintiff, and they deceiving the court by actively filing the lawsuit on the ground of false assertion even though they were aware that they did not have the right to claim damages against the plaintiff. Accordingly, the defendants shall be held liable for damages sustained by the plaintiff as joint tortfeasor (Article 5-2 of the evidence). According to the facts stated above, the plaintiff shall be held liable for damages incurred by the plaintiff as joint tortfeasor (Article 5-2 of the above agreement, the plaintiff shall be held liable for damages caused by the alteration of private documents and the crime of attempted fraud as to the facts added to the above agreement, and the defendant's complaint against the plaintiff was filed on the ground that the defendant did not have any right to claim damages against the plaintiff. However, the defendant may not be acknowledged as having violated the above facts, but it cannot be viewed as a tort, on the ground that the above facts raised based on the alteration of the above agreement cannot constitute a tort.

B. However, according to the evidence as seen earlier, since the plaintiff was served with the complaint of the lawsuit, and was found to have known that the plaintiff filed the lawsuit against the plaintiff, the plaintiff was obligated to find out the progress and result of the lawsuit. If the plaintiff filed a proper response by confirming the progress of the lawsuit in question and attending the date of pleading, the above judgment could have obtained any other favorable conclusion to the plaintiff. However, the plaintiff's negligence is deemed to have been caused by the plaintiff's neglect of this decision and confirmed it as it is. Such negligence of the plaintiff is deemed to have been caused by the occurrence and expansion of the damage in this case. Since the degree of such negligence does not reach the degree of the defendants' liability, it is reasonable to consider it in calculating the amount of damages to be compensated by the defendants, and in light of the contents and circumstances of the tort in this case, it is reasonable to 20%.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to the plaintiff for 8,712,942 won [6, 645, 468 (8, 306, 835 x 8/10) + 2,067, 474 (2, 584, 343 x 8/10)] and 6,645, 458 won from March 9, 1994 on the day following the deposit date to 2,067, 474 won from August 12, 1994 (the above) to 3,000 won, 5% per annum under the Civil Act (the above) until May 12, 1995, which is the date of each sentencing, and as such, the remaining claims for damages for delay from 9% per annum under the Civil Procedure Act to 25% per annum under the above special Act shall be dismissed as the plaintiff's damages for delay from the date following the above deposit date.

Judges Kim Jong-soo