1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Since the judgment on a violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act against the Plaintiff’s assertion is null and void against the Seoul Eastern District Court Decision 2013 Godan387, the said judgment cannot be executed with a surcharge of KRW 10 million based on the above judgment.

Nevertheless, since employees B of the Gun Office of the Jeonju District Prosecutors' Office committed a tort to issue a punishment order without any ground for collection, and illegally received a surcharge of KRW 10 million from the Plaintiff, the Defendant, as a person responsible for the above employees, has the obligation to pay the Plaintiff the money stated in the claim.

2. The lawsuit of this case is lawful, and the lawsuit of this case is filed against a person who has the capacity to be a party as a civil lawsuit, and the defendant (the head of the Gun/Gu Office of the previous State) who is only an agency of the State

3. Thus, the lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed, and since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, it is so decided as per Disposition by cancelling the judgment of the court of first instance and rejecting the lawsuit of this case.