1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 28, 2014, the Defendant merged C (hereinafter “C”) with the purpose of the funeral service business, funeral home leasing business, etc.

B. On June 26, 2014, C entered into a membership transfer agreement with the Plaintiff on the transfer of rights and obligations to the entire members affiliated with C (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

C. However, on September 4, 2014, asserting that the contract of this case is null and void, C filed an application for provisional seizure of claims against D Co., Ltd. against the Plaintiff on the ground that “part of the claim for the return of the amount of money in return,” and filed an application for provisional seizure of claims against D Co., Ltd. on October 10, 2014 (Seoul Southern District Court 2014Kadan6082, hereinafter “instant provisional seizure”).

On July 6, 2015, following the merger, the Defendant filed a lawsuit seeking compensation for damages against the Plaintiff on July 6, 2015 (hereinafter “instant lawsuit”) based on the determination of the court’s order of filing a lawsuit by the Plaintiff upon the Plaintiff’s request, and the contract of this case between the Plaintiff and C is null and void, and the Plaintiff did not have any rights or authority over C members against the Plaintiff. Thus, the Plaintiff without permission, transferred C’s member and member information computerized data to the Plaintiff against the Defendant’s intent to merge with C, and committed a tort of preferentially withdrawing the payment of membership fees by the members, thereby causing damage to the Defendant. However, the Defendant filed a lawsuit seeking compensation for such damage. However, on March 23, 2016 (Seoul Western District Court Decision 2015Da22499). The instant lawsuit was withdrawn on February 2, 2017, which was pending in the appellate trial.

E. On April 6, 2017, the instant provisional attachment was cancelled only when the notice of cancellation of execution submitted by the Defendant to D Co., Ltd. was served.

[Ground of recognition] No dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The summary of the plaintiff's assertion was ruled against the defendant in the lawsuit on the merits of the provisional seizure of this case.