1. The defendant shall pay 25,00,000 won to each of the plaintiffs and 20% per annum from July 16, 2013 to the day of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 2013, Defendant Company held a regular general meeting of shareholders and decided to distribute 25,000,000 won per share to shareholders.

B. The Plaintiffs each hold 10,00 shares as the shareholders of the Defendant Company, and Plaintiff A and Plaintiff B, on August 3, 201, respectively, have the share certificates of 10,000 shares of the Defendant Company after completing entry into the register of shareholders of the Defendant Company on May 30, 201.

(Plaintiff A: E, Plaintiff B: F.C.

On July 6, 2011, an intervenor received a seizure and collection order on the claim for stock dividends, dividend payments, etc. against the Defendant Company owned by the Seoul Central District Court as Seoul Central District Court No. 2011TTT 29451, based on the authentic copy of a notarial deed of monetary loan agreement (Law Firm No. 5990, 201) against G (hereinafter referred to as “G”) on July 6, 201, and the above order was served on the Defendant Company on July 8, 201.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Byung's evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including serial numbers), the result of the order to submit financial transaction information to the Korea Securities Depository, the purport of the entire pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' defense prior to the merits - Whether an independent party intervention is lawful

A. On July 8, 201, 201, on which the intervenor alleged by the plaintiffs had served on the defendant company the seizure and collection order of the above claim, the plaintiffs had already been served on July 8, 201, not G but G as the debtor, and thus, the above seizure and collection order is invalid. Thus, the intervenor's participation in the lawsuit of this case as the independent party who did not have the right to

B. Whether the intervenor has a claim for collection money against the defendant shall be determined according to whether the intervenor owned the share certificate or not on July 8, 201, which was served on the defendant by the seizure and collection order of the intervenor, or whether the transfer of ownership was owned by the plaintiff who completed the transfer of ownership.