1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's claim was based on the claim amount of KRW 100 million against the plaintiff as the claim amount of KRW 100 million, which was the High Government District Court 2009Kadan6761, but the provisional seizure was decided against the plaintiff in the lawsuit on the merits. However, since the disposition of the provisional seizure was delayed due to improper execution of provisional seizure, the defendant is obligated to compensate for property damage amounting to KRW 43,750,000 and KRW 5 million for mental suffering due to infringement of property rights.

2. Although a preservative measure such as a provisional attachment or a provisional disposition is executed by the court's decision, the issue of whether a substantive claim exists shall be entrusted to the lawsuit on the merits and shall be borne by the creditor. Thus, if the execution creditor after such execution has become final and conclusive in the lawsuit on the merits, the damage suffered by the debtor due to the execution of the preservative measure shall be presumed to have been actually presumed to have been caused by the execution by intention or negligence by the execution creditor. However, if there is a special reflective evidence, the presumption of intention or negligence by the execution creditor

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da31033 Decided April 26, 2007). According to the facts stated in the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 1, 2, and 1 and 4 with respect to the instant case, it is recognized that the Defendant was subject to the ruling of provisional seizure against the Plaintiff on November 19, 2009 by using the Plaintiff as the claim against the transfer price amount of KRW 100 million as the claim against the Plaintiff for the transfer price amount of KRW 100 million, and that the Defendant was subject to the ruling of provisional seizure against immovables 2009Kadan6761 Decided November 19, 2009. The Defendant was affirmed in the principal lawsuit on November 13, 2014 (Seoul Western District Court Decision 2012Da570, Seoul High Court Decision 2013Na7142, Supreme Court Decision 2014Da80808).

However, in full view of the evidence Nos. 6, 2, and 3 as well as the overall purport of the pleadings, the Plaintiff raised an objection against provisional seizure by this Court 2010Kadan636 on February 9, 2010, but the party to the transfer contract is the Plaintiff.