beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On January 11, 2017, the Plaintiff was sentenced to imprisonment for eight months and additional collection of twenty-five million won for a violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act, which is based on criminal facts as follows, in Seoul East Eastern District Court Decision 2014Da3174, 2015Kadan4070 (Merger).
-criminal facts- the defendant's crime related to provisional seizure against the defendant's claim at the law firm office located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, where the plaintiff works, around January 2010, the defendant "D, who holds business shares as a C apartment implementer, has not taken legal measures, such as provisional seizure against claims, etc." The defendant is entitled to take a portion of D's share at the disposal of the litigation cost of the above lawsuit, and the defendant's direct provisional seizure should take place upon receiving the above business shares, and the cost of the lawsuit is limited to KRW 25 million. The above money is paid from the defendant as the litigation cost on February 5, 2010.
After that, on April 21, 2010, the Plaintiff prepared an application document for provisional seizure against claims under the Defendant’s name and received it to the Seoul Central District Court, and the Defendant received a decision of acceptance of provisional seizure against claims on May 4, 2010.
Accordingly, although the plaintiff is not an attorney-at-law, the plaintiff dealt with the case such as preparing an application document for provisional seizure of claim.
Around April 2010, the Plaintiff committed the crime related to the provisional seizure against D’s claim was in the office of the Plaintiff located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Seocho-gu, as a matter of provisional seizure against D and D’s claim executor, and D’s appointment of an attorney-at-law was entered in a large amount of money. The method is known, and the ownership is changed by 10% when the business is completed, and D consented, and the Plaintiff proceeded with the provisional seizure against claim under D’s name.
Then, on April 6, 2010, the Plaintiff prepared an application for provisional seizure against a claim under the name of D.