1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above part shall be dismissed.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 6, 2014, the Defendant asserted a loan of KRW 50 million against the Plaintiff as a claim claim, and received the Daegu District Court 2014Kadan30098 ruling on provisional seizure of corporeal movables (hereinafter “instant provisional seizure”). On February 13, 2014, the Defendant executed provisional seizure of corporeal movables in the Plaintiff’s house.

B. On January 24, 2014, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for a loan claim against the Daegu District Court 2014Kadan101337, but withdrawn the said lawsuit on June 2, 2014.

C. Even after the withdrawal of the suit, the Defendant did not cancel the enforcement of the above provisional seizure. However, on July 3, 2014, the Plaintiff’s objection against the provisional seizure of this case was defective, and the provisional seizure of this case was withdrawn on July 8, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap's evidence 1 to 3, Eul's evidence 1, the court's significant facts, the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. Although the plaintiff did not lend the above KRW 50 million to the plaintiff, the defendant received the provisional seizure of this case based on false claims and executed it. The plaintiff suffered considerable mental suffering due to the plaintiff's occurrence of infringement of honor and credit, since the provisional seizure was widely known to the neighboring residents and their relatives and children who found the provisional seizure at home, and thus, the defendant is obliged to pay consolation money of KRW 4 million and delay damages to the plaintiff.

(b) Where a preservative measure, such as a provisional attachment or provisional disposition, is executed intentionally or by negligence, the execution of such preservative measure constitutes a tort.

If the execution creditor has lost the lawsuit on the merits after the execution, it shall be presumed that the debtor was intentional or negligent in the damage incurred by the execution of the preservative measure, unless there is any special evidence against the execution creditor, and the execution creditor shall be liable to compensate for the damage caused by the improper execution.

Supreme Court Decision 2002Da35461 Delivered on October 11, 2002