[손해배상(기)][하집1992(1),88]
The case holding that the execution creditor of provisional attachment was not negligent in the execution of provisional attachment on the ground that it was based on the difference in legal interpretation or evaluation as to the existence of "serious negligence" under the Act on the Liability for Fire Caused by Loss, because the reason why the Supreme Court denied the claim for damages, which is the preserved claim, was not due to the difference in factual relations, but was the cause of the damage, after the case was reversed and remanded by the Supreme Court after partly winning the lawsuit in the first instance and in the second instance.
Article 750 of the Civil Act
[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)
National Telecommunication Corporation
Korea Co., Ltd.
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 105,400,320 won with an annual interest rate of 5% from October 11, 1990 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 25% per annum from the next day to the full payment date.
The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant and a declaration of provisional execution.
According to Gap evidence Nos. 1 (Decision on Provisional Seizure against Motor Vehicles), Gap evidence Nos. 2 (Fire Certification), Gap evidence Nos. 3 (Each Judgment), Gap evidence Nos. 5 (Withdrawal of Lawsuit), and Gap evidence Nos. 6 (Application for Release of Attachment), the plaintiff's damages claim against the plaintiff who was not the defendant's party member of the above Seoul High Court at around 03:5 of April 13, 1984, and two parts of the late-treatment No. 9 were transported from Busan Customs Office to the defendant company located in Seoul, and the defendant's damages claim against the plaintiff Nos. 960 (No. 91604) which were non-party No. 16 of the above judgment of the Seoul High Court, which was not the defendant's judgment of the court below for the damages claim against the plaintiff Nos. 960, which was non-party No. 1604, which was non-party 10, which had been ordered by the above plaintiff's accident, and the defendant's damages claim No. 1, 304, which was the above defendant's damages claim for damages damages damages damages.
Accordingly, the plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff did not borrow and lend the truck No. 9T1604 of the previous game 9TT, which was the above provisional seizure execution as the above recognition of the defendant, and that the plaintiff suffered losses equivalent to the rent from May 18, 1985 to October 10, 199, when the provisional seizure was cancelled, from May 18, 199, the above provisional seizure time. The defendant asserted that the fire accident of this case occurred due to the plaintiff's employees' above scars, scars, and the machinery owned by the defendant was transferred, and therefore, the plaintiff, the employer of the above non-party, was liable for the damages to the defendant, and therefore, the execution of the provisional seizure was led to the execution of the above provisional seizure. Even if the defendant withdrawn the main lawsuit of the above provisional seizure case during the period of the provisional seizure execution, it cannot be said that there was any negligence in the execution of the above provisional seizure, so the plaintiff's claim of this case
Therefore, in light of the above facts and the purport of oral argument, the defendant's above-mentioned provisional attachment Nos. 3 to 3 as well as the above facts that the plaintiff's above-mentioned losses were caused by fire on his own while transporting the above machinery under his control. Thus, it is hard to recognize the plaintiff's liability for damages due to the plaintiff's negligence in the above-mentioned provisional attachment suit, which resulted in the execution of the above provisional attachment because the plaintiff's damages caused to the above defendant's employees' losses due to the plaintiff's negligence on his own as the above-mentioned truck driver's above, and it is hard to recognize the defendant's liability for damages due to the plaintiff's negligence in the above-mentioned provisional attachment suit, which is hard to see that the plaintiff's losses were caused to the above employees' losses due to the plaintiff's negligence in the above-mentioned provisional attachment suit. However, it is hard to see that the plaintiff's losses caused to the above defendant's losses due to the plaintiff's 1's negligence on his own as well as the above 3rd cargo'sk's losses.
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking compensation for damages on the ground that the plaintiff's automobile owned by the plaintiff was illegally executed by provisional seizure due to his own responsible cause is dismissed as it is without merit and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost.
Judges Kim Jae-jin (Presiding Judge)