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

A. C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) was established on July 9, 2004 at KRW 50,000,000 in total amount of capital, and KRW 5,000 in total amount of issued stocks ( KRW 10,000 in total amount of one share). At the time of incorporation, C’s shares were owned respectively by the Plaintiff and the Defendant, respectively, 2,000 shares and KRW 1,000 shares.

B. On December 22, 2009, the Defendant transferred to E 650 shares among the shares owned by C, and 50 shares to the Plaintiff. D transferred to the Plaintiff 250 shares among the shares owned by C on the same day and 750 shares among the shares owned by C, and C transferred to F, who is the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff. On the same day, C entered a change in the register of shareholders according to the above shares transfer; C increased the total amount of capital of KRW 200,000,000 and issued 6,90 shares to the Plaintiff; the Defendant issued 3,90 shares to the Defendant, 2,250 shares to F; and 1,950 shares to E, respectively.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry in Gap evidence 1, 4, and 6 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that all of KRW 50,00,000 of the establishment fund was paid in one’s own money and established C. Since the Plaintiff shared the capital and increased C’s capital, C’s shares were entrusted to other shareholders including the Plaintiff’s ownership or the Defendant’s shares.

However, since the defendant denies the fact of title trust of the above shares, it is sought to confirm that the defendant has the right to shareholders as to the attached list C in the name of the defendant.

3. Determination

A. According to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 14, on July 9, 2004, the amount of KRW 50,000,000 of C’s shares was paid to the National Bank of Korea on July 12, 2004, and the above amount was deposited into the account in the name of Eul (C). On December 18, 2009, 22,00,000 was remitted from the account in the plaintiff’s name to the account in the defendant’s name. The above amount was returned to the account in the defendant’s name. The fact that the plaintiff was working as the representative director at the time of the institution of the lawsuit in this case from the time of its establishment to the time of the institution of the lawsuit in this case is recognized.

B. However, above.