Of the lawsuits in this case, the part concerning the claim of attorney and certified judicial scrivener expenses shall be dismissed.

The defendant shall set forth 1,521,723 won and 1,523 to the appointed parties C.

1. Whether the part concerning the claim for fees of attorney and certified judicial scrivener among the lawsuits in this case is legitimate

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is as follows: (a) the Defendant and E, who was awarded a contract for construction work by the Plaintiff, and the obligee who was affiliated with the Plaintiff, are in official disturbance; and (b) the obligor (joint surety) obtained a letter of loan borrowed in the name of F, the Plaintiff, and the designated parties (hereinafter “Plaintiff, etc.”); (c) received a provisional attachment decision (Seoul District Court 2012Kadan4889) against the Plaintiff, etc. on the basis thereof; and (d) filed a lawsuit for the claim for the loan (the Jeonju District Court 2013Kahap4004).

However, this is based on a false loan loan certificate received by deceiving the plaintiff et al., and the plaintiff et al. paid 3.3 million won at the attorney's expense, 1.2 million won in total, and 4.5 million won at the attorney's expense in order to file an objection against the provisional seizure and to cope with the defendant's claim for the loan. Thus, the defendant is liable to compensate for damages (1.5 million won each by the plaintiff and the designated parties).

B. We examine the judgment, and since the amount paid as the litigation cost can be repaid through the final procedure, there is no benefit to seek a separate claim through a lawsuit.

(See Supreme Court Decision 9Da68577 delivered on May 12, 2000, etc.). However, the aforementioned attorney’s and certified judicial scrivener’s expenses alleged by the Plaintiff constitute an objection against provisional seizure or litigation costs in the principal lawsuit, and thus, they should be reimbursed through the procedure for confirmation of litigation costs. Therefore, there is no benefit to seek through the instant lawsuit.

Therefore, this part of the lawsuit of this case is unlawful.

2. Determination on the remainder of the claims

A. (1) The fact that the Plaintiff, etc. entered into a construction contract between the Plaintiff, etc. and F with the Plaintiff, etc. is the owner of eight parcels outside of G in the Jeonbuk-gun, Jeonbuk-gun, and the Plaintiff, etc. determined the construction cost of KRW 1 billion between F and F, as the construction period from May 10, 2012 to August 31, 2012, and H and I.