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

The reason why this Court is used in relation to this case is as follows, since the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal or addition of the pertinent parts as follows.

(a)Paragraph 12 to 14 of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows:

“However, in light of the following circumstances, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed as the owner of the instant shares, and the Plaintiff’s assertion cannot be accepted (in determining whether the Plaintiff is the actual shareholder or nominal shareholder of the instant shares, it does not affect any particular matter whether Nonparty 2, who had 1% of the Defendant’s shares, was the actual shareholder or nominal shareholder of the instant shares).”

(b)in the third and fourteenth decisions of the first instance court, the following shall be added:

“The capital of Nonparty 1 was paid by Nonparty 1 at the time of the establishment of the Defendant, and the capital increase on November 17, 2001 was also made with the capital of Nonparty 1 (no evidence exists to deem that Nonparty 1 paid a part of the capital or the capital increase on behalf of the Plaintiff).

④ On the premise that the Plaintiff himself/herself is a shareholder of the Defendant, the Seoul Southern District Court 2014Gahap13236, the above court dismissed the above claim on the ground that “The Defendant’s capital was all paid by Nonparty 1 at the time of establishment, the capital increase was also made on November 17, 2001, and Nonparty 1 transferred all of the Defendant’s shares to Nonparty 3 around April 8, 2003. At present, the Defendant’s shares issued on the Defendant’s shareholder registry were transferred to Nonparty 4, a spouse of Nonparty 3 and Nonparty 3, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the above claim.” The Seoul High Court, the appellate court dismissed the above claim on the same ground on April 1, 2016 (the above court Decision 2015Na27080), and the above judgment became final and conclusive as is.”

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Kim Jong-chul (Presiding Judge)