(a) Where filing a lawsuit or filing a lawsuit constitutes a tort;

(b) The case holding that a series of acts, such as a response suit against a provisional seizure/litigation suit and a lawsuit claiming the merits, constitute an illegal act as an illegal act;

C. Requirements for admitting the claim of consolation money due to improper litigation

(d) The case reversing the judgment of the court below which accepted the claim of consolation money due to unfair litigation on the grounds of special circumstances for recognizing consolation money, misunderstanding of legal principles as to its predictability, and incomplete hearing

A. In principle, responding to a lawsuit generally brought or brought an action is lawful as a means for the realization of the rights or the protection of rights of the people guaranteed by the Constitution. However, if such action or action is brought against the intent of the other party to infringe upon the other party’s rights or interests or to inflict pain on the other party without a considerable reason by iceing the realization of rights or the protection of rights, it is recognized as intentional or negligent, and this is contrary to the public order and good morals, it constitutes tort.

B. The case holding that, in violation of Article 7 of the Trust Act, Defendant A’s act of filling the receiver column of a blank promissory note delivered by the Plaintiff with the consent of Defendant B to Defendant B, who is a third party, and then, in violation of Article 7 of the Trust Act, Defendant B received a decision of provisional seizure on the land owned by the Plaintiff and executed it, the provisional seizure objection suit filed by the Plaintiff was filed by the Plaintiff, and Defendant B responded to the lawsuit filed by the provisional seizure objection suit filed by the Plaintiff, and the registration was completed on the security of the loan claim, which is the cause of a promissory note, based on the provisional registration completed in the future of Defendant A, on the basis of the provisional registration completed in the future of the Plaintiff, and that a series of acts

C. Mental suffering suffered by the other party who has suffered unfair lawsuit shall be deemed to be damages due to special circumstances, since the mental suffering which has not been recovered even if the other party has won in the lawsuit in question and has not been recovered even if he/she won in the lawsuit in question. Therefore, in order to accept the claim of consolation money due to unfair lawsuit, the existence of special circumstances that can be deemed to have suffered irrecoverable mental suffering by only winning the lawsuit or compensating for property damage, and the possibility of predictability for such special circumstances should

D. The case reversing the judgment of the court below which accepted the claim of consolation money due to unfair litigation on the grounds of the existence of special circumstances for the recognition of consolation money, misunderstanding of legal principles as to the predictability of such special circumstances, and misunderstanding of psychology.

(b)Article 750(c) of the Civil Code; Article 751 and Article 763(Article 393) of the Civil Code;

A. Supreme Court Decision 76Da2940 delivered on May 10, 197 (Gong1977, 10083) and 81Da375 delivered on October 26, 1982 (Gong1983,54) (Gong1983,54). Supreme Court Decision 78Da1542 delivered on December 13, 1978 (Gong1979, 11616)

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and one other, Defendants et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee and two others

Busan High Court Decision 91Na1285 delivered on August 18, 1993

The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendants shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to Busan High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate brief).

On the first ground for appeal

1. In light of the records, the fact-finding by the court below is acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence.

2. Generally responding to a lawsuit filed or brought an action is lawful as a means for the realization of the rights or the protection of rights of the citizens guaranteed by the Constitution. However, if such action or action infringes on the rights or interests of the other party or is conducted with intent to inflict pain on the other party without reasonable grounds, and this constitutes an unlawful act and constitutes a tort. If the facts are acknowledged by the court below, it shall be deemed that the illegality of the act and constitutes an unlawful act. If the facts were to be filled with the blank Promissory Notes issued by the plaintiff with the consent of the defendant 2, the receiver column of the blank Promissory Notes sent by the defendant 2, the third party, and in violation of Article 7 of the Trust Act, the provisional attachment order was executed on the land owned by the plaintiff, and the plaintiff did not object to the provisional attachment order, and the court below's decision against the above provisional attachment order cannot be justified as it did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to other secured claims against the plaintiff, which are the cause of the above promissory Notes, and the court below's judgment against the defendant 2's claim for provisional attachment order.

Therefore, there is no reason to discuss.

On the second ground for appeal

1. In a case where a property right is infringed by another person’s tort, such ordinary damages are merely an act of property, and thus, they should generally be deemed to have recovered from mental suffering through compensation for such property damage. However, if a property damage is not sufficiently recoverable, if there is any irrecoverable mental damage, then the consolation money should be compensated for such damage.

However, since these damages are damages due to special circumstances, it is possible to recognize consolation money for the damages only if the perpetrator knew or could have known such special circumstances, along with the existence of such special circumstances.

In addition, such legal principles also apply to illegal acts under the so-called litigation procedures, and mental suffering suffered by the other party to the lawsuit in question shall be deemed to be damages due to special circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 78Da1542 delivered on December 13, 1978). Thus, in this case, the plaintiff can claim compensation for the economic loss suffered by the defendants due to the defendants' improper lawsuit. However, in order to accept the claim for consolation money, the existence of special circumstances where it is recognized that the plaintiff suffered irrecoverable mental suffering by only winning or compensating for property damage and the possibility of predictability of the defendants for such special circumstances should be presumed.

2. However, according to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged sufficient mental suffering of the plaintiff in citing the plaintiff's claim for consolation money in light of the circumstance of the lawsuit, and found that the defendants' act of litigation as a special circumstance is brought in the name of defendant 2 using a blank promissory note which the defendant 1 had already been kept as a collateral in relation to the loan claim which has already been extinguished due to the payment in kind by the above other real estate, and the progress of litigation has been continued for two years or more. However, it is difficult to conclude that the principal registration based on the provisional registration in the name of defendant 1 as to other real estate was made as a payment in kind of borrowed money as indicated in the judgment of the court below on the ground that the circumstance of the lawsuit in the judgment of the court below is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff won and suffered from the mental suffering that the plaintiff would not be the above person due to the payment in kind of monetary damage, and it is difficult to recognize consolation money as a special circumstance since the aforementioned circumstance cited by the court below as a special circumstance is merely a factor to establish tort due to the general proceedings or litigation procedure.

3. If so, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to special circumstances for the recognition of consolation money due to unfair litigation or its predictability, or in incomplete deliberation and incomplete reasoning, and the arguments are with merit within this scope.

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendants shall be reversed and remanded, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)