1.In accordance with changes in claims in the trial, the judgment of the first instance shall be changed as follows:

The defendant 22.2.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The defendant is an attorney-at-law who operates a law office under the trade name of "D Law Office (hereinafter "the law office of this case")" in Gui-si C(3) and E is the head of the legal office of this case.

B. The Plaintiff filed an application for a compulsory auction of real estate and its ground (hereinafter “instant auction”) with respect to the building of 109 square meters and its ground (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) in the Namyang-si, Namyang-si, Seoul Special Metropolitan City Court No. 2012Gau, 5924, which was filed by F against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “related judgment, etc.”) with the Plaintiff as the executive title, and delegated the Defendant with legal measures to suspend the auction of the instant case (hereinafter “instant contract”).

C. On August 19, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 7,906,710 in total, including the payment of KRW 7,338,710 as a repayment deposit for the relevant judgment, etc.

On August 19, 2014, E submitted a document of filing an objection to the filing of a claim to the Cheongyang District Court, and on the same day, E applied for the suspension of compulsory execution as the Yanyang District Court 2014Kaga223 to suspend the auction of the instant case.

On August 22, 2014, the above court rendered a decision to suspend compulsory execution (hereinafter “decision to suspend compulsory execution of this case”). However, on February 25, 2015, each of the instant real estate was sold to I on the grounds that E did not submit a written decision to suspend compulsory execution to the auction court of this case.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without a partial dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 9, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. At the first place of the plaintiff's assertion, the defendant neglected his duty to properly handle legal affairs such as the suspension of the auction of this case, which the plaintiff delegated to the defendant via E, despite the fact that he had a duty to properly deal with legal affairs.