2. According to the Plaintiff’s expansion of the purport of the claim, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff 0,00,874 won with 5% interest per annum from April 23, 2015 to June 13, 2016, and 15% interest per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

3. One fifth of the total costs of litigation shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

4. Paragraph 2 can be provisionally executed.

Until the date of service of a copy of the complaint, 5% per annum, 20% per annum from the following day to September 30, 2015, and the following day:

From the date of full payment to the date of full payment, 15% interest per annum shall be paid to the plaintiff (the plaintiff shall be paid to the court below

The purpose of the Gu was extended.

A. The registration of partial transfer of ownership was completed on March 20, 195 in the name of Park Gyeong-dong on April 20, 1970 with respect to the share of 96/196/192 in relation to 196/190 square meters of forest ***** in * in * in *00,000,041 square meters (hereinafter referred to as the "real estate in this case") among the real estate in this case. (b) the defendant completed the registration of each of the above shares of Park Do on August 10, 199 and November 18, 2002.

C. Around July 29, 2005 with respect to the shares of ParkA in the instant real estate, the public auction was conducted by the registration of each of the above seizures, and on January 5, 2006, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on December 22, 2005 under the name of the Plaintiff for the public auction.

라. 이 사건 부동산의 임야대장에는 소유자 "박AA 외 1인", "00동 0000000-3", "******-*******"으로 기재되어 있고, 구 임야대장의 박AA의 한자는 "朴00"로 기재되어 있다.

마. 그런데 피고는 박AA(朴00, 주민등록번호 : 1******-*******0)의 체납을 이유로 위 각 압류등기를 한 것이어서, 임야대장 및 등기부상 소유자 박AA의 상속인인 박**이 원고를 상대로 지분소유권이전등기말소 소송을 제기하여 00지방법원 2013가단000호 사건에서 2015. 1. 16. 원고는 박준상에게 이 사건 지분 중 96/192 지분에관한 말소등기절차를 이행하라는 판결이 선고되었고, 이 판결이 2015. 2. 3. 확정되었다. 바. 이에 따라 2015. 4. 7. 위 원고 명의의 지분소유권이전등기에 관하여 2015. 2. 3. 확정판결을 원인으로 말소등기가 마쳐진 후, 같은 날 협의분할에 의한 상속을 원인으로 박CC 명의의 지분소유권이전등기가 마쳐졌다.

G. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff paid KRW 5,763,00 as the successful bid price on December 27, 2005, KRW 126,780 as acquisition tax and special agricultural and fishing villages tax on December 28, 2005, and KRW 138,310 as registration tax and education tax. (h) On January 21, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 941,59 as litigation costs in the case No. 00 district 2013,000.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 7, 10, 11, 12, Eul evidence 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. When a tax official who has incurred liability for damages performs his duties, he shall faithfully and faithfully (Article 15 of the Framework Act on National Taxes). In the course of performing national tax collection procedures, the owner of the target real estate and the owner of the real estate through his name, Chinese name, address, etc. recorded in the register, forest land register, etc., are obliged to be carefully examined so as not to seize the real estate owned by a third party who is not a delinquent taxpayer. However, the public official in charge of a tax office affiliated with the defendant was negligent in taking a disposition on default on the real estate owned by a third party who is not a delinquent taxpayer on the ground that the resident registration number and Chinese name are the same as Korean name, and thus, the defendant is liable

(b) Scope of damages;

1) The Plaintiff asserts that real estate purchase price is KRW 39,034,050, which is the market price of the pertinent real estate as of the present real estate. However, property damage caused by tort refers to the difference between the property disadvantage caused by illegal harmful act and the property condition that would have existed without such illegal act and the current property status that became the illegal act. It is divided into the active damage that would have lost the existing interest and the passive damage that could not obtain the benefit that would have been lost, and in case where the original owner, who is the real owner, files a lawsuit against the buyer after the registration of ownership transfer was completed, and the judgment in favor of the owner became final and conclusive, the damage suffered by the buyer constitutes the active damage that would have been contributed to purchase the relevant land by believing that the registration of ownership transfer becomes effective, namely, the purchase price, which constitutes the loss of existing interest, and the buyer could not acquire the ownership from the beginning and could not acquire it only due to the confirmation of the judgment raised by the original owner, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the buyer would not lose or acquire the ownership of the land.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 5,763,00, the successful bid price paid by the Plaintiff, and KRW 5,763,00,00, to pay damages equivalent to the statutory interest rate of KRW 2,673,874, KRW 5,763,00, and KRW 0.05x (9 + 102/365), from December 27, 2005, the registration of the Plaintiff’s name sought by the Plaintiff was cancelled until April 7, 2015.

2) As seen in the above facts of tax recognition, the Plaintiff paid the acquisition tax on December 28, 2005, 126,780 won for special agricultural and fishing villages tax, and 138,310 won for registration tax and education tax. As such, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the total amount of KRW 267,090.

3) Litigation costs, etc.

A) The plaintiff's assertion

In the case of 00 district court 2013Kadan0000, the Plaintiff appointed a lawyer and paid 3,150,000 won to the other party's 3,00,000 won of the litigation cost.

B) Litigation Costs

As seen earlier, property damage caused by a tort refers to the difference between the status of property that existed without an illegal act and the current status of property that became the illegal act. As such, if the plaintiff had not committed a tort against the defendant, the plaintiff did not pay the litigation cost in the case No. 2013Gadan0000, which is recognized as causation. However, although the plaintiff asserted that the cost is KRW 3,000,000, the plaintiff claimed that the remaining money was paid to Park* as the litigation cost, there is no evidence to support that the plaintiff paid the plaintiff the remaining money in addition to the litigation cost of KRW 941,59, which was paid to Park*. Thus, this part of the plaintiff's

C) Attorney Fees

In determining the scope of compensation for damage caused by a tort, there is insufficient natural or factual causal relationship between the tort and the damage, and there should be an ideological or legal causal relationship. However, under the Korean legal system without forced attorney-at-law system, there is no proximate causal relationship between the tort itself which caused the damage claim and the attorney’s fees, and thus, the attorney’s fees cannot be included in the damage claim arising from the tort itself (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da15363, 15370, Jun. 10, 2010). Therefore, a proximate causal relationship between the Defendant’s tort and the attorney’s fees incurred in the lawsuit brought against the Plaintiff against the Plaintiff cannot be acknowledged.

4) The principle is that mental suffering caused by mental damage or intangible damage is the above-mentioned compensation for property damage, unless there are special circumstances to deem that the compensation for property damage was serious to the extent that it would not be compensated by itself (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da38971, Jul. 10, 198). However, the judgment on the defendant's deposit defense is recognized as KRW 3 million, considering the following: (a) the plaintiff was aware that he had acquired ownership of the land of this case and lost ownership; (b) the plaintiff would not lose ownership; and (c) the plaintiff would have been at a large market price compared to the time when he acquired ownership of the land before the division of this case; (d) the defendant is for the purpose of protecting the people's property and life; and (e) the defendant was for protecting the people's property and life; and (e) although the plaintiff was not recognized as attorney appointment expenses, it is true that it was paid.

The Defendant asserts that the Defendant deposited KRW 7,671,123 with the Daegu District Court No. 6070 on September 3, 2015 as the principal deposit (i.e., the public sale administration cost + KRW 533,140 + the amount refunded + KRW 5,229,860 + additional refund + KRW 1,908,230 for additional refund) upon the Plaintiff’s refusal to receive the sale price on several occasions, and the Korea Asset Management Corporation deposited the Plaintiff on September 3, 2015.

The validity of a deposit for repayment shall be provided for the full repayment of all obligations and the deposit for the full amount of obligations, and the deposit for a part which is not the full amount of obligations shall not have the effect of extinguishment of obligations even with respect to the deposited part unless the obligee accepts the deposit unless there are special circumstances such as that the shortage is insufficient (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da17046, Oct. 13, 1998). Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 12,645,563 won in total (2,673,00 won + 2,673,874 won + 941,590 won + 3,000,000 won + 3,000,000 won) and 9,971,689 won as cited in the judgment of the court of first instance after the date of tort. As for the plaintiff's claim for damages from April 23, 2015 to April 5, 2016, the date when the court of first instance decides that the defendant raised an objection against the scope of the obligation to perform; 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from the following day to the date when the full payment is made; 2,673,874 won per annum as stated in the annual interest rate of 15% per annum from the next day of the judgment of first instance to the date when the repayment is made; 3% of the plaintiff's claim for damages from 16.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance on the plaintiff's claim prior to the extension of the plaintiff's claim is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is ordered to pay the above money upon the extended claim in the trial, and it is so decided as per Disposition.