1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On January 18, 2011, the Plaintiff lent KRW 200 million to D on January 18, 201, setting the due date as 20 million and interest rate of 20% per annum, and on the same day, D’s wife jointly and severally guaranteed D’s obligation to the Plaintiff.

B. D failed to repay the above loan, and on March 2, 2012, the Plaintiff acquired registered common shares 7,440 shares of E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) owned by C (hereinafter “E”) from a joint and several surety, and the Plaintiff and C decided to offset the claims and obligations arising from the transfer of the pertinent loan against the transfer of the instant shares.

C. On the other hand, on June 4, 2015, the Defendant issued an order of seizure of shares against common share 14,800 shares, including the instant shares held by the obligor C against the third obligor E by the Seoul Central District Court 2015TT No. 13081.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (including each number)

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff acquired the instant shares from C, but the Defendant commenced a compulsory execution procedure against the instant shares owned by the Plaintiff, and accordingly, the Defendant’s motion against compulsory execution against the instant shares on June 4, 2015 based on the executory exemplification of the instant order for seizure of shares issued by the Seoul Central District Court 2015T 13081.

3. Determination

A. A lawsuit of demurrer by a third party against a compulsory execution under Article 48 of the Civil Execution Act is to be brought against an execution creditor, by asserting that he/she has a right to prevent the transfer or delivery of the ownership and other objects of execution already commenced with respect to the objects of execution, and thus seeking the exclusion of such execution.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Da7409 Decided May 10, 2007, etc.). Also, since the transfer of shares before the issuance of share certificates complies with the general principle of the transfer of nominative claim, it is against the third party of the transfer of shares before the issuance of share certificates.