beta
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2018.08.24 2018나20653

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing the reasoning of the judgment citing this case is identical to the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the plaintiff makes an additional determination on the assertion that is emphasized by the court of first instance in 2.

2. Additional parts for determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The defendant filed a claim for damages due to an illegal criminal complaint based on false facts with an investigative agency, filed a complaint with the plaintiff on the basis of fraud, received an investigation and a trial, and accordingly, paid attorney's fees for two years until the judgment of innocence became final and conclusive in a criminal trial. Thus, the defendant is obligated to compensate the plaintiff for damages equivalent to 30 million won and 5 million won attorney's fees. 2) The defendant filed a provisional seizure against the plaintiff on the real estate owned by the plaintiff by asserting that the plaintiff had obtained false fraud against the plaintiff and filed a claim for compensation for damages due to illegal acts. At the time, the plaintiff sold the above real estate to the third party, and requested that the provisional seizure be cancelled. However, although the plaintiff did not comply with the defendant and the plaintiff paid 26 million won to the buyer as a penalty, the defendant is obligated to pay half of the damages.

B. Determination 1) The following facts are acknowledged in light of the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 9, 16, 18, 19, 20, 26, 35, and Eul evidence Nos. 1, and Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3, 9, 16, 18, 19, 20, 26, 35, and the whole arguments. (A) The defendant was introduced from the defendant's work Dong He and his wife, and was developing G from F in LH in May 209, and the defendant was developing G from F in LH Corporation, the building Nos. 35, 35, 1, 1, of the building of the G G in the light panel or commercial building.