손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. The plaintiff's assertion
A. On June 20, 2006, the Plaintiff filed a civil suit against C for the return of KRW 100,000,000 against the Defendant. On July 7, 2006, C conspired with the Defendant for the purpose of evading compulsory execution, prepared a false loan certificate with the Defendant as the obligee, and based on this, C completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage with regard to the third floor building of the Drd floor owned by C, the obligor, the mortgagee, the Defendant, and the maximum debt amount of KRW 110,00,000,000,000.
B. Since February 19, 2009, the Defendant received dividends of KRW 63,467,586 from the auction procedure after receiving a decision to commence voluntary auction on the above real estate from the Daegu District Court. The Plaintiff, despite the claim to return the lease deposit against C, deemed that there was no amount to be distributed due to the secured obligation of the above right to collateral security in the name of the Defendant, and subsequently withdrawn the application for dividends during the above voluntary auction procedure. However, if C and the Defendant did not commit a tort of evading compulsory execution, the Plaintiff would have received dividends of KRW 56,363,737, excluding the amount of claims of creditors other than the Defendant.
C. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the above KRW 56,363,737 as damages for tort, and even if not, the Defendant is obligated to return the dividends acquired through deceit as above to C. Thus, as a creditor of C, the Defendant is obligated to refund the above amount of the dividends to the Plaintiff seeking payment on behalf of C as a creditor of C.
2. The statement of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and 8 (including additional numbers) alone is insufficient to recognize that the defendant prepared a false loan certificate in collusion with Eul for the purpose of evading compulsory execution and completed the registration of the establishment of the above neighboring establishment on the basis thereof. The plaintiff's assertion based on the defendant's invitation is without merit.
Furthermore, the plaintiff.