1. The Defendant’s KRW 7 million and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from July 2, 2016 to September 25, 2019, and the following.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 1, 2016, the Defendant issued a provisional attachment order of KRW 26,396,450, the amount claimed by Suwon District Court Decision 2016Kadan202141, and seized the 10th C (hereinafter “instant provisional attachment”) of the building in Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-gu, Sungnam-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. In 2016, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff as Suwon District Court Decision 2016Guhap65122, and D sought payment of the usage fees of the restaurant that entered into a contract for use and profit-making permission. On February 14, 2017, the Defendant was sentenced to a dismissal judgment by the above court, and thereafter, the Defendant’s appeal (Seoul High Court 2017Nu39237) and the final appeal (Supreme Court 2017Du6079) were dismissed, respectively, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on December 26, 2017.

C. On January 30, 2018, the Defendant applied for the cancellation of the above provisional seizure, and the registration of the provisional seizure was cancelled on January 31, 2018.

Each entry of Gap evidence 1 through 6, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. (1) The occurrence of the defendant's liability for damages, such as provisional attachment or provisional disposition, is executed by the court's judgment, but whether there exists a substantive claim is entrusted to the lawsuit on the merits and the creditor's liability is borne by the vindication. Thus, if the execution creditor becomes final and conclusive after the execution of the preservative measure in the lawsuit on the merits, it shall be presumed that the execution creditor has intention or negligence with respect to the damage suffered by the debtor due to the execution of the preservative measure, unless there is any special counter-proof to the contrary, and therefore, he shall

(2) In light of the above legal principles, as seen in the above basic facts, the Defendant was sentenced to dismissal in the principal lawsuit of the provisional seizure of this case and became final and conclusive after the Defendant was sentenced to dismissal in the principal lawsuit of the provisional seizure of this case. Barring any special circumstance, the Plaintiff’s damages incurred by the provisional seizure of this case.