1. The part of the conjunctive claim in the instant lawsuit is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.

3...

1. Details of the disposition;

A. B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”) is a corporation incorporated on June 20, 1994 and runs the business of manufacturing and selling leather products.

B. From the time of incorporation of the instant company, the Plaintiff entered as a shareholder holding 1,500 shares out of 10,000 shares of the instant company’s total issued shares (hereinafter “instant shares”).

C. On April 25, 2017, on the premise that the Plaintiff owned the instant shares, the Defendant attached the property indicated in the attached list, such as the instant shares, to KRW 136,197,00 and the additional dues KRW 38,407,470, which the Plaintiff defaulted, and notified the Plaintiff thereof.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s alleged shares are C’s property owned by C, not property owned by the Plaintiff, which is deemed to have been trusted in title to the Plaintiff while establishing the instant company.

Therefore, the disposition of this case is conducted on the third party's property, which is not the plaintiff, who is not the plaintiff, and its contents cannot be legally realized.

Therefore, since the disposition of this case is null and void as a matter of course, it is sought to confirm it, and the disposition of this case is unlawful as it is preliminary.

3. Judgment as to the main claim

A. A disposition of seizing a third party’s property, which is not a taxpayer, is null and void as its content is not legally realized (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Du15151, Apr. 13, 2006). However, a person registered as a shareholder in the register of shareholders is presumed to be a shareholder of the company, and the person bears the burden of proving that he/she is presumed to be a shareholder of the company, and in order to reverse this, he/she bears the burden of proving that the name of the shareholder in the register of shareholders was trusted and that there was a separate shareholder as the name of the borrower.