2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the litigation costs, 30% is borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder 70% is borne by the Defendant, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant of the Gu office shall pay to the plaintiff 0,00,000 won with 5% interest per annum from April 23, 2015 to the service date of a copy of the complaint, 20% interest per annum from the next day to September 30, 2015, and 15% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

Of 00 00 -00 -00 - 00 -00 -00 00 -00 -00 -00 - 041 - Of 96/192 - - with respect to 96/192 shares on April 20, 1970 ** (the address on the register: 00 -0 -00 - 00 -00 - - 000 - - 3) transfer registration was completed on March 20, 195 for sale and purchase on March 20, 195. The Defendant completed each of the registrations on August 10, 199 and November 18, 2002.

○ Of the instant real property,**** Of the instant real property, the public auction was conducted on July 29, 2005 through the registration of each of the above seizures, and on January 5, 2006, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on December 22, 2005 under the name of the Plaintiff for the public auction.

○ 이 사건 부동산의 임야대장에는 소유자 "*** 외 1인", "00동 000-3", "******-*******"으로 기재되어 있고, 구 임야대장의 ***의 한자는 "朴00"로 기재되어 있다.

○ 그런데 피고는 ***(朴00, 주민등록번호 : ******-*******)의 체납을 이유로 위 각 압류등기를 한 것이어서, 임야대장 및 등기부상 소유자 ***의 상속인인 박00이 원고를 상대로 지분소유권이전등기말소 소송을 제기하여 대구지방법원 2013가단 000000호 사건에서 2015. 1. 16. 원고는 박00에게 이 사건 지분 중 96/192 지분에 관한 말소등기절차를 이행하라는 판결이 선고되었고, 이 판결이 2015. 2. 3. 확정되었다.

Pursuant to ○○, on April 7, 2015, the registration of cancellation was completed on February 3, 2015 with respect to the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of said Plaintiff on the grounds of a final and conclusive judgment, and the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of gambling was completed on the same day on the grounds of inheritance due to the division of consultation.

○ Meanwhile, the Plaintiff paid KRW 0,000,000 as the successful bid price on December 27, 2005, and KRW 000,780 as the acquisition tax and special agricultural and fishing villages tax on December 28, 2005, and KRW 000,310 as the registration tax and education tax. On January 21, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 00,000,000 as the litigation cost in the Daegu District Court case No. 2013,000, as the litigation cost in the Daegu District Court case No. 2013,0000.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, 10, 11, 12, and Eul evidence No. 3

A. When a tax official who has incurred liability for damages performs his duties, he shall faithfully and faithfully (Article 15 of the Framework Act on National Taxes). In the course of performing national tax collection procedures, the owner of the target real estate and the owner of the real estate through his name, Chinese name, address, etc. recorded in the register, forest land register, etc., are obliged to be carefully examined so as not to seize the real estate owned by a third party who is not a delinquent taxpayer. However, the public official in charge of a tax office affiliated with the defendant was negligent in taking a disposition on default on the real estate owned by a third party who is not a delinquent taxpayer on the ground that the resident registration number and Chinese name are the same as Korean name, and thus, the defendant is liable

(b) Scope of damages;

1) The Plaintiff asserts that the current market price of the real estate in this case is KRW 00,034,050, which is the actual market price of the real estate in this case. However, property damage caused by a tort refers to the difference between the property disadvantage caused by an illegal harmful act and the current property condition that would have existed without such illegal act. It is divided into the active damage that would have lost the existing interest and the passive damage that could not obtain the benefit that would have been lost, and in case where the original owner, who is the real owner, filed a lawsuit against the buyer after the registration of ownership transfer was completed, and the judgment in favor of the owner became final and conclusive, the damage suffered by the buyer constitutes the active damage that would have been contributed to purchase the land by believing that the registration of ownership transfer becomes effective, namely, the purchase price, which constitutes the loss of existing interest, and the buyer could not acquire the ownership of the land from the beginning and could not acquire it only due to the confirmation of the judgment raised by the original owner, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the buyer would not lose or acquire the ownership of the land (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 93032.

Therefore, the damages that the Defendant is liable to compensate for to the Plaintiff are KRW 0,000,00,000, which is the successful bidder paid by the Plaintiff.

2) As seen in the above facts of tax recognition, the Plaintiff paid the acquisition tax on December 28, 2005, the special agricultural and fishing villages tax, the registration tax and the education tax of 00,310 won. As such, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the total amount of KRW 00,090.

3) Litigation costs, etc.

A) The plaintiff's assertion

In Daegu District Court 2013Kadan0004, the Plaintiff appointed a lawyer and paid KRW 0,150,000 to the other party's 0,000,000.

B) Litigation Costs

As seen earlier, property damage caused by a tort refers to the difference between the property status that existed without an illegal act and the current property status of the company where such illegal act occurred. As such, if the plaintiff had not committed a tort against the defendant, the plaintiff did not pay the litigation cost in the Daegu District Court 2013dan0000, which is recognized as causation. However, although the plaintiff asserted that the cost was KRW 0,000,000, the plaintiff claimed that the remaining money was paid to Park 00, but there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff paid the remainder as the litigation cost, other than the litigation cost of KRW 941,59, which was paid to Park 00, since this part of the plaintiff'

C) Attorney Fees

In determining the scope of compensation for damage caused by a tort, there is insufficient natural or factual causal relationship between the tort and the damage, and there should be an ideological or legal proximate causal relationship. However, under the Korean legal system without the attorney-at-law coercion, it cannot be recognized that there is a proximate causal relationship between the tort itself which caused the damage claim and the attorney’s fees. Therefore, the attorney’s fees per se cannot be included in the damage claim arising from the tort (Supreme Court Decision 2010Da15363, 15370 Decided June 10, 2010).

Therefore, the defendant's illegal act and the appointment of a lawyer who was incurred in the lawsuit filed against the plaintiff by Park 00

The proximate causal relation between the cost cannot be recognized.

(iv) mental or intangible damages;

Mental suffering caused by property damage shall be limited to compensation for property damage.

property loss, unless there is a special reason to deem that such loss is a serious to the extent of not being transferred.

In principle, it is the above-mentioned compensation (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da38971 delivered on July 10, 1998).

However, even if the plaintiff was aware that he acquired ownership of the land of this case, the ownership was held.

The loss was caused by the failure to reduce the loss, and the Plaintiff’s land before the division

In comparison with the time when ownership was acquired, there is a lot of market price, and the defendant appears to have been

The purpose of this Act is to protect the property and life of the people, and the costs of appointing attorneys

Although it was not recognized, it was true that it was paid by the Plaintiff, considering the fact that it was the fact.

Mental damage(it can be seen as intangible property damage) is recognized as one million won.

C. Judgment on the defendant's deposit defense

The defendant shall give a peremptory notice to the plaintiff to receive the proceeds from the cancellation of the sale decision on several occasions.

Although the Plaintiff refused to receive, the Korea Asset Management Corporation was Daegu District Court on September 3, 2015 2015

No. 000, the Plaintiff as the principal deposit amounting to KRW 0,000,123 (=Public sale administrative expenses of KRW 000,140 + refunded amount

The defendant's obligation to deposit is deposited as the amount of 0,229,860 won + additional dues of 0,908,230 won.

claim that the extinction occurred.

If a deposit for performance is valid, the provision for the performance of all the obligations and the deposit for the full amount of the obligations shall be made.

(1) The deposit of a part of the obligation shall be made in the manner that the deficiency is less than the full amount;

unless the creditor accepts the deposit, unless there are special circumstances by the creditor.

In relation to this part, the effect of extinguishment of an obligation does not occur (Supreme Court Decision 98 delivered on October 13, 1998).

C. Therefore, the defendant's allegation in this part is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Then, the defendant 0,971,689 won (0,763,00 won) in total to the plaintiff + 000,090 won in total

00,599 won + 0,000,000 won) as sought by the Plaintiff after the date of the tort.

D. From April 23, 2015, the date on which the defendant rendered a substantial judgment to dispute the scope of the defendant's obligation.

Before April 5, 2016, 5% per annum provided for in the Civil Act and the promotion of litigation from the next day to the day of full payment, etc.

(15) per annum under the Special Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of 15 per cent (15%)

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and is justified.

The remaining claims are dismissed.