1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. On August 1, 1994, Seoul Central District Court Decision 94Kadan39375 dated August 1, 1994.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 1, 1994, the Defendant, on the part of F, obtained the decision of provisional seizure of real estate (hereinafter “the provisional seizure order of this case”) from the Seoul District Court 94Kadan39375, and accordingly, as to F-owned shares of F-ownership (hereinafter “the two lands of this case”) out of the size of 9,767 square meters in Seopopopo City G forest (hereinafter “the land of this case”) and H 231,406 square meters in Seopo-si, Seopopopo City, Seopopopo-si, Seopo-si, Seopo District Court 94, the registration of provisional seizure (hereinafter “the provisional seizure registration of this case”) was completed as of August 5, 1994 by each Jeju District Court Ypo-si Office 23846.

B. With respect to the portion of 3,155/9,767/1 of the instant land, the transfer registration under the Plaintiff’s name was completed as of June 23, 2006 with respect to the said portion as of June 23, 2006. As to the F’s remainder of 9,767/602 shares, the provisional registration of the Plaintiff’s right to claim the transfer of all shares was completed as of December 24, 2014, and on March 3, 2017, the registration of the Plaintiff’s right to claim the transfer of all shares was completed based on the provisional registration as of March 3, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The claim amount of the provisional attachment decision of this case which caused the plaintiff's claim is KRW 43,530,00,000. Since the defendant received the total amount of the claim amount in the public sale procedure for the land of this case conducted under the National Tax Collection Act, the effect of the provisional attachment decision of this case cannot be maintained any longer.

Therefore, the plaintiff, a third party who acquired shares in the land of this case after the provisional seizure of this case, seeks the exclusion of enforcement power by filing a lawsuit by the third party's objection.

3. Relevant legal principles

(a) The objective scope of the prohibition of disposal of provisional seizure is limited to the amount of claims indicated in the decision of provisional seizure, and if only the principal of the claims is stated in the amount of claims for provisional seizure, the provisional seizure obligee has the interest or damages for delay incidental to the obligor in addition to the principal claim.