1. The Defendant has the executory power over the provisional seizure of shares, No. 2011 Chicago138 of this Court against C, D, and E.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 12, 2011, the Defendant: (a) as to each of the shares listed in the separate sheet in F (Death, December 3, 2010) in the name of F (hereinafter “instant shares”); (b) as the garnishee, F’s heir C, D, E, the debtor, and G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”) as the third debtor; (c) received a decision on the provisional seizure of shares (No. 2011Kadan138) from this court; and (d) served on the instant company on May 24, 2011.

B. Around July 24, 2002, the instant company issued 5,000 shares as registered shares, which were issued at the time of incorporation, with 5,00 shares as 5,00 shares. Around 207, the shareholder status was F35% (1,750 shares), Plaintiff 34% (1,700 shares), H30% (1,500 shares), and I 1% (50 shares). Around October 7, 2008, F transferred 10% out of shares as payment for the loan obligations to the Defendant (50 shares) and 20% (1,000 shares) to J, respectively.

C. The Defendant was the representative director of the instant company from October 9, 2007 to December 28, 2009, and the F was registered as the joint representative director and the J as the auditor. However, around March 28, 2009, the Defendant out of the shares of the instant company since December 28, 2009, held 40%, F, J, and the Plaintiff, respectively.

Despite the fact that the Plaintiff owned 5% of the F’s shares against the Defendant and F and that there was no fact that the Plaintiff received the instant shares from the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff filed a complaint as an occupational embezzlement if he embezzled the Plaintiff’s shares by reporting the change of stocks, etc. as if he received the instant shares from the Plaintiff at the tax office around March 2009. On December 3, 2010, the Plaintiff was subject to a disposition that the F had no authority to prosecute the death of the F, and the Defendant was subject to no suspicion.

F. Since the death of F, C, D, and E filed an application for the approval of the succession to the instant shares under the 2019-Ma1 158 of this Court, which did not include the instant shares in the inherited property.

【In the absence of dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap evidence 1 through 9 (including additional number), Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The allegations by the parties and the determination thereof

A. The party’s assertion (1) Before the death of Plaintiff F.