1. The Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 118,966,00 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from November 25, 2016 to the date of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 26, 2012, C paid 40 million won by February 28, 2013 between D and D, a member of the Defendant limited liability company, and a voluntary adjustment was concluded to pay 7,000 and 20% delay damages if D did not comply with it.

B. C, on November 9, 201, the former Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2011Kadan8949, which was the Seoul Southern District Court, provisionally seized KRW 10,000 for 19,350 for 19,350 for 19,350 for the shares of the employees of the Defendant Company D). The original copy of the instant provisional attachment decision was served on the Defendant Company’s registry in the 401 Si-Gun E building, the location of its head office.

C. Meanwhile, around March 2013, the Plaintiff, a creditor of C, received the above claim as C and received an order for special sale or realization of shares in employees upon receiving the succeeding execution clause, but the Defendant’s employees did not consent and became impossible to execute the said claim.

Accordingly, on September 22, 2016, the Plaintiff received the debtor as the defendant, the third debtor, the amount of 118,966,000 won (the aforementioned 70 million won and the amount at the rate of 20% per annum from March 1, 2013 to September 1, 2016) from the seizure and collection order of the shares of the members of this court 2016TB 8793 (the claim for repayment of shares) from the defendant, the third debtor, and served on the defendant at the same time.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence No. 1 to No. 12

2. Judgment on the parties' arguments

A. The plaintiff asserts that the original copy of the decision on provisional attachment of this case was delivered lawfully at the seat of the head office of the defendant, and the defendant asserts that the original copy of the decision on provisional attachment of this case was not delivered as unlawful since it did not actually operate the business even though the address stated in the original copy of the decision on provisional attachment

B. According to the evidence No. 13, “Silsan E. building 401”, which is the head office of the defendant company’s corporate register, is registered as the location of the defendant’s head office, while the address of the G Survey and Design Corporation operated by F is the address of the defendant’s head office. However, the actual defendant was not used for business, and the F was served with the original copy of the instant provisional attachment decision but did not deliver it to the defendant.