Each of the above shares is owned by the plaintiff, and the plaintiff held title trust with the above defendants.

The Plaintiff, as the instant complaint, expressed the intent to terminate the title trust against the Defendants.

2. In the event that a change of entry in the register of shareholders is made in the register of shareholders, it shall be presumed to be a legitimate shareholder, but in the event that the name of the shareholder is deemed to have been trusted and it is deemed that there is a separate shareholder, the shareholder's right shall belong to the beneficial shareholder (see Supreme Court Decisions 2007Da27755, Sept. 6, 2007; 2007Da7059, Mar. 27, 2008; 2007Da7059, 70605, Mar. 27, 2008). According to the above facts, it can be known that the title trust agreement for the instant shares between the Plaintiff, Defendant B, C, and D was lawfully terminated. Thus, the shareholder's right for the instant shares is against the Plaintiff

In addition, as long as the title trust agreement is terminated as above, the defendant company is obligated to implement the procedure to write the name of shareholder of the shares of this case to the plaintiff.

The Defendants, despite the title trust, have asserted that insofar as Defendant B, C, and D are indicated as shareholders on the register of shareholders, the said Defendants shall be treated as shareholders in accordance with the formal theory externally. However, the instant claim is related to the internal legal relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendants that are the parties to the title trust and thus, there is no room to apply the legal principles for the purpose of protecting a third party as asserted by the Defendants in such internal legal relationship between the parties to the title trust and the Defendants. Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion is without merit

3. Conclusion of the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants