1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff asserted the following as the content of the instant lawsuit and sought non-permission of compulsory execution based on the Ulsan District Court Order 2018TTTTT 3525. A.

On May 1, 2017, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 300 million from the Defendant from the Defendant, and on June 16, 2017, a notary public drafted a notarial deed for a loan for consumption (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) with No. 1023, 2017, to the effect that the Defendant would repay the said KRW 300 million to the Defendant by July 31, 2017.

B. In addition, on May 26, 2017, the Plaintiff agreed to substitute KRW 300 million out of the share transfer price with the above loan, when transferring KRW 60,000 shares issued D Co., Ltd. owned by the Plaintiff to the Defendant for the purpose of securing the above loan obligation.

C. However, the Defendant did not pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 300 million out of the sale price of the above shares, and applied for an order of seizure of shares owned by the Plaintiff to the Ulsan District Court 2018TTB3525 on the basis of the instant notarial deed and issued a judgment of seizure order. The Defendant’s act of seizing the Plaintiff’s shares based on the instant notarial deed is unfair, and thus, execution of the order of seizure should be denied.

2. A lawsuit seeking ex officio determination on the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit is unlawful, inasmuch as an ex officio request for determination is sought to exclude the executive force of the enforcement title itself. As such, seeking non-permission of an individual executory act already executed is unlawful.

(See Supreme Court Decision 71Da1008 delivered on December 28, 1971, etc.). With respect to the instant case, the Health Center, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit of this case does not seek to exclude the executory power of the Notarial Deed itself, which is an executive title, but rather seek to deny compulsory execution based on a seizure order of shares, which constitutes an individual enforcement act, and is unlawful.

I would like to say.

3. As such, the instant lawsuit is unlawful and thus dismissed.