손해배상(기)
1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.
The defendant.
1. Judgment on the claim of consolation money with respect to provisional seizure
A. (1) On October 13, 2017, the Defendant filed a claim for recognition and child support against the Plaintiff (Seoul Family Court 2017ddan36704).
(2) Around that time, the Defendant applied for provisional seizure of real estate (hereinafter “instant provisional seizure”) against the Dong-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City D large 21 square meters and D and E-ground buildings (hereinafter “instant real estate”) owned by the Plaintiff, using the child support claim as a preserved claim, and filed an application for provisional seizure of real estate (hereinafter “instant provisional seizure”) with the said court on October 24, 2017. The provisional seizure order was issued from the said court on October 26, 2017.
(3) On June 2018, the Defendant withdrawn the claim for support fees from the above lawsuit, and on September 20, 2018, withdrawn the application for provisional seizure of this case and revoked the registration of entry into the provisional seizure of this case on September 21, 2018.
(4) On July 4, 2018, the above court rendered a judgment that “the Defendant is aware of the Plaintiff’s natural father” in the above case claiming recognition.
On October 23, 2018, the Plaintiff appealed against the above judgment (the Gwangju Family Court 2018Reu3570), but the above court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal.
The Plaintiff appealed against the above judgment (Supreme Court Decision 2018Meu15572), but the Supreme Court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal on March 14, 2019.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings
B. The Defendant asserted that the Defendant applied for the provisional seizure of this case by mistake of the legal judgment of the Plaintiff.
In addition, the defendant immediately withdrawn the application for provisional seizure of this case when he became aware that the application for provisional seizure of this case was wrong, but he withdrawn the application for provisional seizure of this case only after the lapse of three months from June 2018 to September 2018.
As a result, the plaintiff suffered mental suffering such as restricting the exercise of property rights and undermining credit.