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.

1. The court's reasoning concerning this part of the facts admitted is the same as "1. Basic Facts" among the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 is that the number plate (E) is attached to the Plaintiff’s claim and that the Plaintiff’s claim is owned by the Plaintiff, and thus, it is not allowed to conduct an auction procedure by an execution officer, but subject to the auction procedure by the executing court.

However, the execution officer C did not investigate the existence of the register and the number plate of the vehicle No. 1, and had No. 1 on the premise that the corporeal movables were corporeal movables, and the execution officer conducted the instant auction procedure on the premise that the corporeal movables were seized. In the instant auction procedure, the 1st shop was sold to D at KRW 4 million.

As above, enforcement officers C have committed a tort on official duties due to negligence, and the plaintiff suffered from loss of ownership and possession of the above-mentioned 1 owner. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay damages of 27.5 million won (=31.5 million won at the market price of the plaintiff (i.e., 1 owner - 4 million won at the auction procedure of this case) and damages for delay incurred by the plaintiff under the State Compensation Act.

B. The judgment of the attachment report can be deemed the only evidentiary materials related to the enforcement officer’s attachment procedure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 94Ma1121, Aug. 22, 1994). The above attachment report cannot be readily rejected, barring special circumstances, such as that it is an official document presumed to have been authentic and contrary to the truth.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Da78768 Decided February 22, 2002, etc.). First of all, the Plaintiff was attached to the vehicle number plate of the Plaintiff 1 on the rear side. However, at the time of the enforcement of the instant case, the Plaintiff asserted that it was only a vehicle number plate of the Plaintiff’s vehicle number plate on the rear side of the saidker’s vehicle number plate, but the Plaintiff’s witness of the trial court as stated in the Eul evidence No. 2 and the trial witness.