1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. On October 7, 2004, the gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion succeeded to the right as a provisional seizure creditor of the National Bank of Korea within the scope of the amount of KRW 13,705,058 from March 15, 2005 to April 26, 2007, when repayment of KRW 13,705,058 from among the claims of the National Bank of Korea, a creditor of the provisional attachment decision No. 2004Kadan23294 dated October 7, 2004, which was the creditor of the Seoul Northern-gu District Court Decision No. 2004, the creditor of the provisional attachment decision, was the debtor.

After that, the Gwangju Metropolitan City Urban Corporation admitted the shares of this case and deposited compensation for expropriation due to concurrent seizures, etc.

The above deposited compensation should be distributed to the plaintiff who is the person holding the provisional seizure of the shares of this case, but it is unlawful to exclude the plaintiff from the distribution of dividends.

2. According to Article 67 (1) of the Land Expropriation Act, a public project operator shall acquire the ownership on the date of expropriation of the land and terminate other rights to the land, and the provisional attachment shall become null and void due to the original acquisition of the ownership of the land by the public project operator due to the expropriation of the land, even if the provisional attachment is executed on the land to be expropriated, and it shall not be deemed that the provisional attachment of the land shall become null and void as a matter

(See Supreme Court Decision 98Da62961 delivered on July 4, 2000). Regarding the instant case, health class, although the Plaintiff succeeded to the rights of the creditor of provisional seizure as to the instant shares, the Plaintiff succeeded to the rights of the creditor of provisional seizure

Even if there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff took measures, such as provisional seizure, against the compensation for expropriation, as long as the claim for equity compensation in this case did not separately attach the provisional seizure, it cannot be asserted as a right holder of provisional seizure. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on the premise different from this premise is without merit without further examining the remainder of the issue.

3. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.