손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. On July 16, 2009, the Plaintiff asserted purchase from D the Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C Apartment 101 Dong 905 (the instant apartment). The Plaintiff entered into an agreement with the Defendant to trust the name of the Defendant and D, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Defendant on September 5, 2009.
However, on October 11, 2012, the Defendant attached the instant apartment to KRW 12,00,000,000 as the claimed amount, without the Plaintiff’s consent, and completed on February 21, 2012, the registration of the establishment of a neighboring maximum debt amount of KRW 45,00,000, G on May 3, 2012, for the establishment of a mortgage over the maximum debt amount of KRW 75,000,00,000.
Since this is a tort violating the embezzlement and title trust agreement, the defendant is liable for damages equivalent to KRW 132,00,000, which is the sum of the amount of claims for provisional attachment and the maximum amount of claims for each right to collateral security against the apartment of this case.
2. Comprehensively taking account of the descriptions in Eul 1-1, 2, 3, Eul 2-1, 2-2, and Eul 3, the plaintiff prepared a letter of waiver of rights that "on February 17, 2012, the plaintiff shall waive all rights and transfer all rights to the apartment of this case, shall not participate in all of the apartment of this case, and shall not demand any rights or interests."
In light of this, since the Plaintiff waived all rights to the instant real estate, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s creditor attached the instant real estate provisionally, and that the Defendant’s establishment of the right to collateral security on the instant real estate is an offense of embezzlement or title trust.
The plaintiff argues that the defendant altered a letter of waiver of right, the waiver of right is not a true declaration, and that it is invalid in violation of Article 4 (2) and (4) of the Provisional Registration Security Act, but there is no evidence to prove such assertion, and it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff promised the transfer of the apartment of this case as a security for the borrowed money. Therefore, the above argument is accepted in entirety.