1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is in collusion with C, etc., and the Defendant prepares a false sales contract for the sales right to sell D apartment 117 dong 602 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) to C in light of light name, and the Defendant filed a civil lawsuit against the Plaintiff several times and filed a criminal complaint against the Plaintiff using the sales contract for the said sales right.

The Defendant’s filing of an unjust lawsuit against the Plaintiff using the above sales contract for the false sales right is a fraudulent lawsuit that abused the right of lawsuit, and the Plaintiff suffered economic, time, and mental damage therefrom.

The Defendant’s preparation of a sales contract for the above fraudulent sale right constitutes a tort, and the Defendant should compensate the Plaintiff for damages incurred by the Plaintiff for KRW 40 million and damages for delay.

2. Determination

A. On July 27, 2009, the Plaintiff purchased an apartment unit with a size of 84 square meters or more from 115 square meters among the main apartment units to be constructed in G major land substitution area with compensation for E’s share out of 2,241 square meters in light of the Defendant’s living together on July 27, 2009. On July 27, 2009, the Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the Defendant’s obligation to the Plaintiff under the above sales contract to E with the Defendant on July 27, 2009. However, the dispute arising between the Plaintiff and E regarding the sales contract for the above apartment unit, the Plaintiff provisionally seized the Defendant’s right to claim for the transfer registration of ownership against the instant apartment unit.

3) Accordingly, the Defendant sold the instant apartment sales right to C, and the Plaintiff’s improper provisional seizure makes it impossible to transfer the sales right to C due to the Plaintiff’s improper provisional seizure, thereby causing damages to C by preparing a letter of promise to pay KRW 150 million as compensation for damages to C, etc., and on several occasions against the Plaintiff (Seoul East Eastern District Court 2009dadan75766 (principal lawsuit), 2009Gadan8207 (Counterclaim) and Seoul Southern District Court.