1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiff's assertion is the creditor of Nonparty B.

The Plaintiff filed an application for the seizure of shares with Seoul Western District Court 2015TT7969, and seized the shares of the third obligor company held by (B) the obligor against the third obligor (Defendant in this case) from the same court. Upon the obligor’s request, the third obligor shall not transfer his/her shares or deliver his/her share certificates to the obligor. Upon the obligor’s request, the third obligor shall not transfer his/her shares nor deliver his/her share certificates to the obligor. The obligor shall not sell, transfer, or otherwise dispose of the shares. The order was issued to the effect that the obligor shall not sell, transfer, or otherwise dispose of the shares. The Defendant paid the shares price in violation of the order,

Accordingly, the plaintiff suffered losses equivalent to the price of shares that could have been paid pursuant to the above order of seizure of shares, and the defendant shall compensate the plaintiff for such losses.

2. According to the evidence Nos. 1 to 3 of this Court’s judgment, it is recognized that there was an order of seizure of shares as asserted by the Plaintiff.

However, according to the evidence B Nos. 1 through 3, it is recognized that the share of the Defendant on June 18, 2015, which was served on the Defendant on July 30, 2015, was transferred to Nonparty C and D on July 30, 2015, and the said share of the Defendant is not subject to the validity of the said share of the said order, and there is no room for the Defendant to violate the prohibition set forth in the share of the Defendant.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim on the premise of the violation of the order of seizure of shares is dismissed as it is without any justifiable reason, and it is so decided as per Disposition.