1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff is liable for the nominal holder of the Plaintiff’s name, etc., and filed a lawsuit for damages with the Suwon District Court Branch Decision 2014Kadan5953. On August 26, 2015, the said court rendered a judgment that “the Plaintiff and C jointly pay KRW 30 million to the Defendant and its delay damages.”

Although the Plaintiff appealed in the above judgment, on May 27, 2016, the appellate court of the instant case (U.S. District Court 2015Na31848) rendered a judgment that “The Plaintiff and the Defendant are liable to pay KRW 30 million and delay damages therefrom,” on the ground that “The Plaintiff and the Defendant, each of whom are the nominal users, shall be returned as unjust enrichment,” on the grounds that “The Plaintiff shall pay KRW 30 million and delay damages therefrom to C and the Defendant.”

The above appellate court rejected the plaintiff's assertion that "the defendant was aware of the fact that C borrowed the plaintiff's qualification and name at the time of the agreement on brokerage commission."

The defendant had been aware of the fact that C was operating the office by lending the name of the real estate agent in the name of the plaintiff and had the court decide by deceiving the court by submitting false evidence that C had been unaware of such fact and thereby having the court rendered a judgment that recognized the liability of the name lender of the plaintiff as above. Since the plaintiff suffered mental suffering due to the tort committed by the defendant's litigation fraud, the defendant is obliged to pay 10 million won as consolation money to the plaintiff.

2. We examine the judgment, and the Defendant’s false statement and false evidence.