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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

A. On November 8, 2018, the Plaintiff received an inquiry as to whether the loan of the base loan secured by the Plaintiff’s land to the Ministry of Strategy and Finance under the Defendant’s control is subject to regulation and the legal basis therefor.

B. The Ministry of Strategy and Finance transferred the Plaintiff’s above questioning to the Financial Services Commission, which is the department in charge, and the Financial Services Commission responded to the same content as the Answer 1 on December 17, 2018.

C. On December 2018, 2018, the Plaintiff asked a second question to the Financial Services Commission on the title “Peremptory Notice on Civil Petitions” with the Financial Services Commission, and on February 21, 2019, the Financial Services Commission respondeded to the Plaintiff with the same content as the Attached Answer 2.

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap's evidence 1, 2, 4, Eul's evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion (1) The Plaintiff asked questions related to policy recommendations in order to obtain a loan in the form of the base theory as security on the land, the only property of which is the property while nursing the denial of hospitalization in the rehabilitation care hospital.

② However, the Defendant, upon receiving the Plaintiff’s question and peremptory notice on two occasions, sent an answer to “inherent about housing rental business” that is irrelevant to the Plaintiff’s civil petition, and did not give a faithful answer to financial companies by recognizing the exception of the DSS index and not asking them about whether it is possible to grant a loan.

③ As such, the Plaintiff did not receive a correct answer for two months, and did not find any other method while waiting for that result, and the Defendant is obligated to pay consolation money to the Plaintiff KRW 10,000,000.

B. The Plaintiff seems to have asserted that the Defendant is liable for tort on the ground that the Plaintiff’s response duty to the question was not properly handled, but the person in charge of the duties belonging to the Defendant is the theoretical content.