5% and 15% interest per annum from the following day to the day of full payment shall be paid.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

Cheong-gu Office

A. On January 14, 2014, AA (hereinafter referred to as “A”) transferred 1 billion won of claims against BB Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “B”) to the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “instant claims”) and notified BB of the transfer on January 15, 2014.

B. On March 27, 2014, the Defendant received a provisional disposition prohibiting the disposal of the instant claims by deeming the Plaintiff as the obligor, BB, the garnishee, and the right to be preserved as the right to claim restitution based on the revocation of fraudulent act. On March 31, 2014, the decision was served on BB.

(B) The Daejeon District Court Branch Branch 000Kahap0000, hereinafter referred to as the "Provisional Disposition").

C. On April 9, 2015, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking revocation of a fraudulent act (the principal lawsuit against the instant provisional disposition) against which the Defendant’s tax amount of KRW 000,000,000 against A was revoked as the preserved right. On the following grounds, the Defendant was sentenced to a judgment against the Plaintiff on the grounds that the instant provisional disposition was not proven as insolvent, and the said judgment became final and conclusive by failing to file an appeal (Seoul Central District Court 000,000).

AA was unable to issue convertible bonds of KRW 3,180,00,000 to raise funds for emergency financing around September 2009, with a plan for the issuance of convertible bonds of KRW 3,180,00,000 to thisCC and DD (amended trade name: EE). However, since this and DD did not pay the subscription price to the Intervenor, it does not constitute a small property of AA. Even if it is assumed by the Defendant’s assertion as to the remaining value of the small property of the AA claimed by the Defendant, the value is below KRW 0,00,000,000, which is the sum of the active value of the assets of AA as the Defendant. Thus, it cannot be said that AA was in a state of debt at the time of the instant transfer contract, or that it exceeded the obligation therefrom.

D. On May 13, 2015, the Plaintiff revoked the instant provisional disposition order and dismissed the application for the provisional disposition. On May 28, 2015, the said decision became final and conclusive on May 28, 2015 (Seoul District Court Branch Branch 000Kahap000). The instant provisional disposition cancellation notice was served on BB on June 1, 2015, and its execution was revoked.

(Evidence) Facts that there is no dispute, Gap 1 through 6, and Eul 1 through 6, each entry, pleading,

The purport of the whole

2. Determination

A. Existence of liability for damages caused by execution of the provisional disposition of this case

Although preservative measures, such as provisional attachment or provisional disposition, are executed by the court's trial, the existence of substantive claims is entrusted to the principal lawsuit and is under the creditor's responsibility by vindication. Thus, if the execution creditor after such execution becomes final and conclusive to lose the lawsuit on the merits, it shall be presumed that the execution creditor has intention or negligence with respect to the damage incurred to the debtor due to the execution of preservative measures, unless there is any special reflective proof, and therefore, he/she shall be liable to compensate for the damage caused by such improper execution (Supreme Court Decision 2012Da34764 Decided August 23, 2012).

Although the Defendant received the provisional disposition of this case and executed it, the fact that the judgment against the Defendant was final and conclusive in the lawsuit on the merits is as seen earlier. Barring special circumstances, the Defendant is presumed to have intention or negligence with respect to the execution of provisional disposition of this case, and thus, is liable

B. Judgment on the defendant's argument

The defendant asserts that the presumption of intention or negligence should be reversed as he did not appeal the judgment against the court of first instance, which is the principal case litigation, and revoked the execution of the provisional disposition of this case under the direction of the prosecutor.

The above argument alone cannot be deemed to have reversed the defendant's intentional or negligent presumption, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, the defendant is found to have failed to properly confirm the existence of AA's telephone bond liability of KRW 3,180,000,000, which is the issue of the lawsuit on the merits of the provisional disposition in this case. The defendant's above assertion is rejected.

C. Determination on the scope of damages

In the case of delay in the disposal of a newly built apartment house for the purpose of sale due to the execution of an unfair provisional disposition prohibiting disposal, the legal interest equivalent to the disposal price shall be considered as ordinary damages.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Da26774 delivered on November 13, 2001). The above legal principle applies to cases where a creditor suffers losses due to delay in collection of claims due to the execution of provisional disposition prohibiting disposal as seen in this case.

The amount of KRW 00,000,000 calculated at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from March 31, 2014 when the provisional disposition of this case was executed with respect to KRW 1 billion of the claim of this case, until June 1, 2015, constitutes ordinary damages.

D. Sub-determination

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff damages amounting to KRW 00,000 and damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from June 2, 2015 to November 22, 2016, the delivery date of the complaint of this case, and 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment, as the Plaintiff seeks.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted on the ground of the reasons.