1. The plaintiff's appeal and the plaintiff's conjunctive claim added in the trial are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

1. The reasoning of this court concerning this part of the basic facts is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment as to the plaintiff's primary claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was known or could have known that registration of ownership preservation was made in the name of C, the creditor for the purpose of collateral security, through fact inquiries with respect to the Defendant (the director of Cheongju District Tax Office) committed in the Cheongju District Court 2000Kahap2983, which was brought by B against C, and civil complaints with respect to the Defendant (the director of Cheongju Tax Office) on the part of B (the defendant).

In addition, the Plaintiff asserted the ownership of the instant house and claimed the return thereof to the Defendant, and the Defendant brought a lawsuit against C, who is a taxpayer of the instant house, and received a favorable judgment, and the Defendant was given a favorable judgment, pursuant to Article 53 of the former National Tax Collection Act (amended by Act No. 8832 of Dec. 31, 2007) and Article 55(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, suspended the execution of the disposition on default on the instant house,

Nevertheless, the Defendant, without any specific confirmation procedure, sustained damages from the Plaintiff’s loss of ownership by selling the instant house, which was owned by the Plaintiff against the good faith principle and was not owned by C, a taxpayer.

In addition, on December 27, 2012, the Defendant recognized that the instant house was owned by the Plaintiff and expressed his opinion to the effect that it would return the proceeds of the sale, and thereby, erred in the misapprehension of the principle of trust protection by violating the said principle.

Therefore, the Defendant’s damages for the said tort, which caused the Plaintiff to obtain KRW 86,19,00 (= KRW 44,778,000 in selling price of KRW 507 in selling price of KRW 106) and KRW 41,421,00 in selling price of KRW 507 in selling price of KRW 106 in total).