제3자이의
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. With respect to the case for which this Court applies for the suspension of compulsory execution of 2014 Chicago10168, October 2014
The Defendant’s provisional attachment of the instant shares on March 18, 2003 by the Dong Branch of Seoul District Court 2003Kadan3920 on the basis of the claim B (hereinafter “instant provisional attachment”). The Defendant served on May 21, 2003 the provisional attachment decision of this case on the provisional attachment order, and the Defendant filed a lawsuit against B seeking reimbursement of KRW 520 million and interest thereon or delay damages on April 3, 2014 on the ground that the provisional attachment order of this case was canceled on May 21, 2003 by the Seoul East Eastern District Court 2013Kahap18477, which was the Seoul East Eastern District Court 200 million won and the said judgment became final and conclusive on April 19, 2014. The Defendant did not have received any dispute between the parties to the instant provisional attachment and the competent court on September 24, 2014 on the basis of the executory exemplification of the said judgment.
The Plaintiff, before the provisional attachment of this case, transferred the shares from B on February 10, 202, prior to the provisional attachment of this case. Thus, the Defendant asserts that compulsory execution against the shares of this case should be dismissed on September 24, 2014 based on the executory exemplification of the above judgment against B.
On February 10, 2002, when the Plaintiff acquired the shares of this case from B, the Korea Transport Co., Ltd., a company issuing the shares of this case as of February 10, 2002, had not yet issued the share certificates, and there was no dispute between the parties. In such a case, the law requires the notification of the transfer by a certificate with a fixed date or the consent of the issuing company of the shares, as in the case of the transfer of nominative claim, in order to oppose the third party, as in order to oppose the transfer of shares, the law requires the notification of the transfer by a certificate with a fixed date or the consent of the issuing company of the shares. Thus, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the requirements
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so ordered as per Disposition.