1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On September 29, 2014, the Defendant: (a) filed an application for provisional seizure of real estate with the claim amounting to KRW 26.5 million with respect to the Namwon-si District Court of Jeonwon-si, Seoul (hereinafter “instant real estate”); and (b) filed an application for provisional seizure of the instant real estate with the claim amounting to KRW 26.5 million with the said court on October 8, 2014 (the Jeonju District Court 2014Kadan320, hereinafter “instant provisional seizure”); and (c) executed the provisional seizure order on the instant real estate from the said court (hereinafter “instant provisional seizure”).

B. Around 2015, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff as a counterclaim against the Defendant (Seoul District Court 2015Da1471, 2015Kadan23019), but the Defendant’s counterclaim was dismissed, and the said judgment became final and conclusive.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 3, purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the real estate in this case was sold to Dok-do at a price higher than 200,000 won per square meter. However, due to the Defendant’s improper provisional attachment execution, the Plaintiff did not sell the real estate in this case to Do-do Co., Ltd., and as a result, the Plaintiff incurred a loss equivalent to 16.2 million won (i.e., e., the 1,756 square meter per square meter per square meter per square meter x 200,000 won) calculated by the ratio of 2 million won per square meter

Accordingly, the plaintiff is entitled to claim the amount of the claim as part of the amount of damages as the lawsuit of this case.

B. Although a preservative measure, such as the establishment of a provisional attachment or a provisional injunction, is being executed by the court's decision, whether a substantive claim exists shall be entrusted to the lawsuit on the merits and shall be borne by the creditor by the vindication. Thus, if the enforcement creditor subsequently loses the lawsuit on the merits, then the execution creditor shall be either intentionally or intentionally liable to the execution creditor for the damage incurred by the debtor due to the execution of the preservative measure, unless there is any special counter-proof.