beta
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2019.01.15 2018나25016

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On September 8, 2016, the Seoul Eastern District Court rendered a decision to commence the auction of real estate in relation to D Apartment E (hereinafter “instant apartment”) owned by the Plaintiff’s wife C (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

B. On August 3, 2017, the Defendant purchased the instant real estate in the said voluntary auction procedure and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the same day. On August 30, 2017, the Defendant received an order to deliver real estate against C and the Plaintiff’s ASEAN.

C. On October 8, 2017, the Plaintiff removed from the apartment of this case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 3 and 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant suffered mental pain to the plaintiff due to the following illegal acts in the course of purchasing the apartment of this case by auction. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay consolation money of KRW 19.5 million to the plaintiff.

① On September 30, 2017, the Plaintiff said that his children would be the director of October 10, 2017, when the marriage ceremony was terminated. However, the Defendant neglected this and gave an order of delivery through an enforcement officer, etc.

② The Defendant promised to deliver to the Defendant a written confirmation that the Plaintiff’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son.

③ The Defendant visited the Plaintiff’s neighboring apartment and damaged the Plaintiff’s reputation by speaking the fact that the instant apartment was knocked out and the university of origin from the Defendant.

④ During the process of Defendant 1’s finding the Plaintiff and having the Plaintiff directors up to October 10, 2017, the Plaintiff forced the Plaintiff to enforce compulsory execution without delivering a letter.

⑤ The Defendant is the Plaintiff.