tort liability due to illegal filing of a lawsuit

Despite the well-known fact that if an investigation was conducted prior to the filing of a suit, the complaint would be dismissed due to its being ineligible as a party, if the complaint was not conducted properly without any proper investigation, the tort will be established.

Article 750 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 70Da1586 Delivered on September 29, 1970

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Twelves et al.

Seoul Central District Court (72 Gohap192) in the first instance trial

(1) Of the original judgment, the dismissal of the plaintiffs' claim regarding the money that orders payment from the next original judgment is revoked.

The defendants jointly and severally pay to the plaintiffs an amount of KRW 150,00 per annum from March 10, 1972 to the full payment.

(2) The plaintiffs' remaining appeals are dismissed.

(3) The costs of lawsuit in the first and second instances are divided into three parts and one of them is the plaintiffs, and the remainder is the defendants' each.

(4) The money mentioned in paragraph (1) above may be provisionally executed.

The plaintiffs shall revoke the original judgment.

The Defendants shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiffs an amount of KRW 250,000 and an annual amount of KRW 5% from the day following the first oral argument to the full payment.

The costs of lawsuit in the first and second instances are all assessed against the defendants and a declaration of provisional execution. (The plaintiff is partly amended in the trial)

The Defendants filed a lawsuit against the Defendants on June 21, 192, and Nonparty 4 to 10, respectively, and the contents of Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2’s testimony and pleading were as follows: (a) if the Defendants were to have failed to file a lawsuit against the Defendants on the following grounds: (b) if the Defendants were to have filed a lawsuit against the Defendants, the Defendants did not appear to have been aware of the above facts; (c) if the Defendants were to have filed a lawsuit against the Defendants on the ground that the Defendants did not appear to have been aware of the above facts; and (d) if the Defendants were to have filed a lawsuit against the Defendants on the ground that the Defendants did not have any capacity to file a lawsuit against the Defendants; (d) if the Defendants were to have filed a lawsuit against the Defendants, the Defendants did not have any right to file a lawsuit against the Defendants on the ground that the Defendants did not have any right to file a lawsuit against Nonparty 5 and Nonparty 6, the Defendants purchased the lawsuit against the Defendants on August 17, 1970.

On the other hand, when collecting the evidence from the above, the plaintiffs did not inherit the deceased non-party 3's property and neglected the registration of the plaintiffs as to the above real estate as they were the owners in the forest register for the above real estate. Thus, it can be recognized that the defendants could avoid mistake as they succeeded to the above real estate. Thus, the plaintiffs' above errors are deemed to have led the defendants to commit a tort by the unfair lawsuit against the defendants. Therefore, it should be offset against the defendants' damages amount.

Furthermore, in full view of the contents of Gap evidence 2 and Eul evidence 4 (No. 3; hereinafter the same shall apply) from the testimony of non-party 1 by the witness of the court below, the plaintiffs delegated the above lawsuit to non-party 7, and paid 300,000 won for the retainer in September 5, 1970. When the plaintiffs finally win the lawsuit, the plaintiffs agreed to pay 500,000 won for 50,000 won for 50,000 won for the above lawsuit, but the above lawsuit became final and conclusive as the plaintiffs won for 500,000 won for 50,000 won for 190 won for 300,000 won for the above lawsuit. The amount of the above lawsuit is reasonable for 300,000 won for each plaintiff's agent's 60,000 won for 300,000 won for 50,000 won for the above lawsuit.

In addition, the plaintiffs asserted that the defendants should compensate for the above costs of lawsuit, such as on-site inspection costs, witness daily allowance, etc. However, the facts that the defendants filed against the plaintiffs in this case were sentenced to the judgment that the above costs of lawsuit should be borne by the defendants, which became final and conclusive, are all the above costs claimed by the plaintiffs as included in the above costs of lawsuit, and thus the plaintiffs' claim against them cannot be separately claimed. Thus, it is unreasonable that the plaintiffs' claim against them is without merit.

Therefore, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay damages for delay in civil law at the rate of 5% per annum from March 10, 1972 to the full payment system, which is obvious from March 10, 1972, which is the next day after the first oral argument of the plaintiffs is sought by the plaintiffs 1 and 2 as well as after the above illegal acts. Thus, the plaintiffs' claims for delay in civil law are justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder is dismissed. Accordingly, the original judgment dismissing the plaintiffs' claims for the above recognition funds is unfair, and the part is revoked and the above recognition funds are ordered to be paid as well as the above payment of the above recognition funds is ordered as well as the remaining appeals of the plaintiffs are without merit. Accordingly, the plaintiffs' remaining appeals are dismissed. With respect to the payment of legal expenses, Article 96, Article 92, Article 89, Article 93 of the Civil Procedure Act and Article 199 of the Provisional Execution Act shall be applied to the provisional execution order.

Judges Kim Hong-chul (Presiding Judge)