손해배상
1. The plaintiff's claim that was changed in exchange in the trial is dismissed.
2. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Scope of trial in the party trial after the process of lawsuit and remand;
A. At the first instance court, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for the payment of KRW 143,929,520 as property damages incurred by a public official’s illegal act and damages for delay of KRW 50,209,520 as property damages incurred by the public official’s illegal act. 2) The first instance court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim, and the Plaintiff appealed.
3) Prior to remand, the appellate court partially accepted the Plaintiff’s appeal and rendered an illegal act by the public official in charge, and rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s remaining appeal against the Defendant, on the cancellation of the part against the Plaintiff as to KRW 89,200 (the delivery fee of KRW 4,000, KRW 85,200, and the damages for delay pertaining to the delivery fee of KRW 85,200, and the damages for delay.
Accordingly, the plaintiff and the defendant appealed against their respective losing parts and filed an appeal. The judgment of remand dismissed the plaintiff's appeal and reversed and remanded only the part against the defendant's losing part.
B. After remand, the remainder of the judgment except the part reversed and remanded among the plaintiff's claims was separated by the judgment of remand and excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court.
Therefore, the scope of adjudication on the party shall be limited to the part against the defendant's loss, but according to the plaintiff's claim change in the trial court, the public official in charge of the payment order in this case claims consolation money due to illegal act.
2. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the
3. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment
A. Although the payment order of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1 was invalidated due to the Plaintiff’s objection, the public official in charge delivered the original copy of the payment order to the Plaintiff in violation of his duty of care. The Plaintiff’s claim is based on B.