1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff, the Defendant, and C, etc. reported purchase on the date of sale conducted around April 2014 (Seoul Southern District Court E) from the voluntary auction procedure (Seoul Southern District Court E) on the 11st floor of reinforced concrete structure on the land and the 11st floor of reinforced concrete structure on the said land (hereinafter referred to as “instant real estate by combining the said land and buildings”), but the said court issued a decision to permit sale to which F was the buyer on May 8, 2014.

B. Afterwards, the Plaintiff and the Defendant appealed against the above decision of permission for sale. Of the deposit of KRW 311,500,000, the Plaintiff paid KRW 161,50,000 to the Plaintiff, and the remainder to the Defendant respectively.

C. Meanwhile, on May 7, 2014, the Plaintiff’s G transferred KRW 10,000,000 to H’s account, which is the son of C. D.

After receiving KRW 161,50,000 from the Plaintiff on June 3, 2014, the Defendant deposited KRW 311,500,000 in the name of the Plaintiff on June 3, 2014, and filed an appeal against the said decision of permission for sale on the ground that the appraisal was wrong on June 18, 2014 (the foregoing court 2014Ra236), the said court dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on April 28, 2015.

The Plaintiff re-appealed again (Supreme Court Decision 2015Ma844), and the Supreme Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s reappeal on September 1, 2015.

[Based on the recognition] The evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul No. 2 (including the number of additional evidence), Eul's testimony, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff alleged that the plaintiff could not purchase the real estate of this case during the above voluntary auction procedure, and the defendant, a certified judicial scrivener, who is well aware of the absence of the grounds for appeal, should have tried to consult with the defendant about the method of remedy. The defendant, who is a certified judicial scrivener, should have been tried only on the ground that the plaintiff did not have the possibility of winning the appeal even if the plaintiff requested it to