1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The Defendant asserted and C conspired with the Plaintiff to transfer to the Defendant the business property of a restaurant operated by C around September, 201 for the purpose of evading compulsory execution based on the payment order decision in the loan case No. 2002 tea900, the Nam-gun District Court of the Republic of Korea, Seoul District Court 2002 tea 900, the Defendant shall compensate the Defendant for the damages equivalent to KRW 11,60,000 suffered by the Plaintiff due to such joint tort.

2. Generally, the infringement of a claim by a third party may constitute a tort, but the infringement of a claim by a third party does not always constitute a tort, but should be determined by specifically examining the establishment of the claim in accordance with the form of the infringement of a claim. If a third party’s act of reducing a debtor’s liability property makes it impossible or difficult for the creditor to execute or satisfy the claim, it may be deemed a violation of a claim. However, the mere fact that the third party’s act is merely involved in the reduction of the debtor’s property to constitute a tort against the creditor is insufficient, and the third party actively conspired with the debtor with the knowledge of the existence of the creditor against the debtor and the infringement of the claim

The intention, negligence, and illegality of the infringement of claims should be recognized, such as using unlawful means contrary to the social norms with the intent to obstruct the exercise of claims. Here, the illegality of the infringement of claims should be determined individually by taking into account the content of the infringed claims, the attitude of the infringement, the intent of the infringer, or the existence of the year in which the infringer had committed the infringement. Determination should be made after careful consideration of the need to guarantee the freedom of transactions, the public interest including economic and social policy factors, the balance of interests between the parties, etc.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da25021 Decided September 6, 2007, etc.). In light of the above legal principles, the health care unit and the Plaintiff regarding the instant case.