Seoul Central District Court 201Kadan153574 ( October 13, 2011)

It cannot be recognized that the plaintiff suffered damage due to the defendant's intentional tort.

Even if the plaintiff's assertion is acknowledged, it is not difficult to find that the defendants' tort is established, or there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff suffered damage in each lawsuit due to the defendants' intentional act, and the violation by negligence.

2011Na48857 Damage, Claim

AA

KimB 2 others

Seoul Central District Court Decision 201Da153574 Decided October 13, 2011

May 23, 2012

June 20, 2012

1. The plaintiff's appeal and the claim added to the house are all dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance court is revoked. (1) The defendant JeongCC, and the defendant KimB, and the Republic of Korea, jointly and severally with the defendant JeongCC, shall pay the above amount of KRW 000,000, and the defendant JungCC1, jointly and severally (the plaintiff shall reduce the claim of the part in the first instance trial, and add the part in the claim (2). On the other hand, the plaintiff at the trial on February 16, 2012, confirmed the above defendant's imposition of inheritance tax amount of KRW 00 and the joint and several tax liability imposition disposition of the heir against the above defendant Republic of Korea on February 16, 2012, and added the claim to pay KRW 00 for the fee of KRW 2/34 out of the above amount of land, but revoked the above claim).

1. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. Judgment on the argument on the termination of a lawsuit

Defendant Jeong-CC, and on August 19, 201, the court of first instance withdrawn the instant lawsuit against the Defendants, and the Defendants agree thereto. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against each other. The Defendant only filed an objection on September 7, 201, that only the Republic of Korea filed an objection on September 7, 201, and Defendant KimB, and Jung-CC did not file an objection, and the lawsuit in this case between the Plaintiff and Defendant KimB, and Jung-CC was terminated upon the determination of the above reconciliation recommendation. However, on August 22, 2011, the court of first instance did not transmit the original copy of the reconciliation recommendation to the Plaintiff on August 22, 2011, or on September 1, 2011, and thereafter, the fact that the above reconciliation recommendation recommendation decision was not finalized since the original copy of the reconciliation recommendation was not served on the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the above assertion in this court is significant, and it is without merit.

B. Determination as to the assertion of duplicate lawsuit

Defendant PCC, and the Plaintiff asserted that Defendant PCC prepared false financial statements of EE Development (hereinafter referred to as “EE Developmentl”) against Defendant PCC in this case, and that the Plaintiff would have suffered damages including 000 won by losing the Plaintiff’s lawsuit, and that the Plaintiff first brought the lawsuit in this case, Seoul High Court 201Na82072, which brought the first lawsuit, sought a uniform compensation for damages as the cause of the claim. Accordingly, the part of the lawsuit in this case against Defendant PPCC constitutes a duplicate lawsuit as to the unified subject matter of lawsuit, and that the part of the lawsuit in this case, including 00 won and 30.10 won, and 10 won and 11 evidence, are not identical to that of this case, and that the Plaintiff did not first claim for the new lawsuit in Seoul High Court 2000 won and 200 won, which included 00 won and 201.1.210 won, which included 30 won and 2010 won in the previous case.

2. Judgment on the merits

A. The Seoul Central District Court 2010Kahap14716 case and the Seoul High Court 2010Na57301 case and the claim and judgment on tort related to the case

1) The plaintiff's assertion

(A) Defendant KimB’s assertion of tort

Defendant KimB asserted that ① (a) the Seoul District Court 2009ss.16243 case filed by the Plaintiff against Defendant KimB and Defendant Kim Jong-B, (b) only lent the name at the request of KimD with respect to the EE development shares in the name of Defendant KimB and the passbook of the new bank, and (c) the Defendant Kim Yong-B lent the name to GD, and (b) the Plaintiff asserted that the relevant documents were sent to KimD, or (c) the documents were sent to GD, and the documents were presented only as a written reply and a preparatory document, although the Plaintiff testified that the documents were sent to the KimB. The Plaintiff was withdrawn from the application for Defendant KimB, and continued the litigation against the Defendant Jeong-B, and the Seoul Central District Court 2010Kahap14716 case, the main lawsuit on the application for the conciliation, and the Seoul High Court 2010Na57301 case, the appellate court 200s.

(B) Claim for tort by Defendant UACC

① As the representative director of the EE Development, Defendant Jeong-B had the Plaintiff, who believed the contents of the audit report, proceed with the suit in each of the above cases, and had the Plaintiff lost in each of the above cases, on the ground that the Plaintiff did not take corrective measures despite being aware that Defendant KimB had been recorded as four shareholders of the above company in a note on the financial statements among the audit report in 2003, and did not take corrective measures despite being aware that the audit report was falsely prepared, and that the contents of the audit

② In Seoul High Court case 2010Na57301, Defendant PCC held the title trust of Defendant PCC’s stocks, and Defendant PCC received KRW 000 of the litigation costs from the amount deposited by the Plaintiff, on the ground that the claim for the above case is false and inconsistent with the res judicata effect of the decision in lieu of the final conciliation rendered in the Seoul Central District Court 2010Kahap74572 case, which the Plaintiff separately raised against Defendant PCC, thereby deceiving the court and being judged in favor of the court. Moreover, the Seoul Central District Court 201Kadan1040 amount of litigation costs was claimed to confirm the litigation costs.

(C) Defendant Republic of Korea’s assertion of tort

The Defendant Republic of Korea had the Plaintiff, who believed the details of taxation in the report on completion of the inheritance tax investigation and other tax investigation, file a lawsuit against the Defendant Jung-CC, etc. on the grounds that he had the Plaintiff lose the lawsuit and ask the litigation cost in question.

(라) 따라서 원고에게， 피고 정CC은 ① 원고로부터 지급받은 위 소송비용 000 원과 ② 원고가 위 사건에 들인 소송비용과 정신적， 육체적, 금전적， 시간적 손해에 대 한 배상으로 피고 정CC이 원고에게 청구한 금액과 같은 금액인 000원 합계 000원을 손해배상금으로 지급하여야 하고，피고 김BB， 대한민국은 피고 정QQ과 연대하여 위 돈 중 ② 부분에 해당하는 000원을 지급하여야 한다.

2) Determination

The plaintiff's assertion is nothing more than the argument that it is difficult to deem that the defendants' tort has been established, and it is nothing more than the argument that there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff suffered damages in each of the above lawsuits due to the defendants' intentional or negligent illegal act. Accordingly, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

B. The argument and judgment on the Seoul Central District Court 201Kao1663, and the court 201Ra1036

1) The plaintiff's assertion

The Seoul Central District Court 201Mo3387 case filed an application for conciliation, and there is no provision on the legal costs, and since the respondent of the above case is two persons, the costs of the lawsuit must be claimed equally by the respondent. However, the defendant Republic of Korea has a duty to jointly and severally pay damages to the plaintiff KRW 1 million to the plaintiff in the same court of the same case, which is the case at the request of the Seoul Central District Court 201Ma1663, and the appellate court of the case at the request of the Seoul Central District Court 201Ma1036, which is the case at the request of the Seoul Central District Court 201Mo387.

2) Determination

There is no evidence to prove that there is an illegal act in the court's decision in the above litigation cost confirmation claim case or in the defendant UCC's claim, and the plaintiff's above claim is without merit without examining any further.

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim in this case is all dismissed due to the lack of reason, and the judgment of the court of first instance which dismissed the claim for damages related to Seoul Central District Court 2010Kahap14716 and Seoul High Court 2010Na57301, is just, and the plaintiff's claim in this case is justified, and the plaintiff's claim as

All additional claims are dismissed in the lawsuit and trial court. It is so decided as per Disposition.