beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 233,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from December 29, 2017 to the date of full payment.
Reasons
1. The description of the claim is as stated in the application for correction of the purport and cause of the claim dated December 14, 2017, and as stated in the application for correction of the cause of the claim dated March 21, 2018.
2. Judgment made by confession of applicable provisions of Acts (Articles 208 (3) 2 and 150 (3) of the Civil Procedure Act);
3. Part 3 of the dismissal
A. As to the amount of consolation money for emotional distress suffered by the Defendant’s non-defensive tort, the fact-finding court may determine the amount of consolation money at its own discretion, taking into account all the circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da66001, Jun. 23, 2005). In full view of all the circumstances, such as the relationship between the parties known by the records and the result of the criminal case, it is reasonable to determine the amount of consolation money to be paid to the Plaintiff by the Defendant as three million won.
Therefore, we cannot accept the part of the plaintiff's claim exceeding three million won.
B. In a case where the portion of consolation money due to a false lien execution is generally infringed on a property right due to a tort by another person, barring any special circumstance, the amount of emotional distress shall also be deemed to have been recovered from the compensation for the property damage, and where the compensation for property damage is not sufficient to recover the amount of consolation money (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Da22912, Jul. 25, 2003). The plaintiff's assertion alone is insufficient to recognize that there are special circumstances to recognize that the plaintiff suffered irrecoverable mental damage only due to the defendant's false lien execution, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this portion of consolation money, the plaintiff's claim is not acceptable.
C. Although there are parts of the Plaintiff’s claim for starting the starting point of the damages for delay under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, this is whether the Defendant is obligated to perform.