1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above part shall be dismissed.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 24, 2002, G Co., Ltd. (1) was incorporated in the register of shareholders of G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”) and issued 5,000 shares of registered shares with a face value of 10,000 per share at the time of incorporation. Around 2007, G’s register of shareholders was recorded as holding 1,750 shares, the Plaintiff 1,700 shares, and H 1,50 shares, and 50 shares, respectively.

(2) Thereafter, around 2008, F transferred 500 shares out of the above shares to the Defendant, and H transferred 1,500 shares out of the above shares to the Defendant, and H transferred 1,50 shares out of the above shares to the Defendant on March 2009 respectively. Around March 2009, the shareholders listed in the shareholder registry were changed to F with respect to the above 1,70 shares out of the Plaintiff’s name (hereinafter “instant shares”) and the above 50 shares out of the Plaintiff’s name (hereinafter “instant shares”). As the current shareholder registry of G changed to F, the Defendant is currently registered as 2,00 shares (= 500 shares), 1,750 shares (=50 shares - 500 shares - 1,000 shares - 1,000 shares), 1,00 shares out of the Plaintiff’s name, 1,000 shares and 1,000 shares (=1,700 shares each share).

B. The F died on December 3, 2010, and his heir C (3/7) who is his/her spouse, D and E (2/7) who is his/her child.

C. On the other hand, on May 12, 2011, the Defendant: (a) rendered loans to the deceased F’s heir C, D, and E (hereinafter “the deceased F’s heir”) as a preserved right; (b) received a decision of provisional seizure of shares on the shares listed in the separate sheet in the name of the networkF, including the instant shares; and (c) served the decision of provisional seizure of the said shares on May 24, 201 to G as the garnishee on May 24, 2011.

(hereinafter referred to as the "decision of provisional seizure of this case"). 【No dispute exists concerning the provisional seizure of this case, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The first instance court rejected the Plaintiff’s request with respect to the instant shares (700 shares) among the shares (1,00 shares) listed in the separate sheet, and rejected the execution of the instant provisional seizure and dismissed the Plaintiff’s request with respect to the remaining 300 shares. Accordingly, the Defendant is only liable to do so.