손해배상(기)
1. Defendant B’s KRW 83,261,773 as well as 5% per annum from July 23, 2015 to August 17, 2015.
1. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B
A. The Defendant, with the indication of the claim, forged the relevant documents, and registered the transfer of ownership in the name of the Defendant himself/herself without permission of 50 tons of the 50 tons of the Plaintiff’s possession (registration number C, tea number D:). As a result, the Plaintiff suffered a loss from the Plaintiff’s failure to conduct business for about seven months during the said period.
Therefore, the defendant is liable for the plaintiff to pay the business loss amounting to 83,261,773 won and damages for delay due to tort.
(b) Judgment made by deeming confession: Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act;
C. The portion of the claim for damages for delay that exceeds the interest rate of 15% per annum pursuant to the provisions on statutory interest rate under the main sentence of Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings on Partial Dismissals (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 26553, Sep. 25, 2015 and enforced from October 1, 2015) is dismissed.
2. Determination on the claim against Defendant Han Capital Co., Ltd.
A. Facts of recognition 1) Defendant Han Capital Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd”).
(2) On April 18, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant Company for cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the right to collateral security (No. 2014Gahap13847, this Court), claiming that the registration of the establishment of the right to collateral security (No. 2014Gahap13847, this Court), which was based on Defendant B’s transfer registration based on the transfer registration that was made by forging relevant documents, was affirmed on June 4, 2015.
3) The Defendant Company appealed against the above winning judgment and appealed on June 23, 2015, but subsequently, the Defendant Company rejected the petition of appeal on July 7, 2015 due to the order of correction after the appeal was issued. [The facts without dispute over the grounds for recognition, the entries in Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
B. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment are trying to obstruct the plaintiff's business or cause pain to the plaintiff without good cause by iceing the realization of rights or the protection of rights.