주식명의개서절차이행청구
1. The plaintiff D and the defendant's appeal are dismissed, respectively.
2. The plaintiff, an incorporated association, added at the trial.
1. The reasons for the explanation on this part of the basic facts are as follows: “Defendant F” of the first instance court’s 4 to 6 is “F”, “Plaintiff B” is “B”, “Plaintiff C” is both dismissed, and “Defendant M” is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the first instance court’s judgment (including the corresponding part) except that the Plaintiff “C” is deemed to be a witness M of the sixth instance court’s decision, and that it is also cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The plaintiffs' assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiffs' assertion (1) at the time of the defendant's preparation of the plaintiff's list of shareholders dated July 16, 2008 (hereinafter "the plaintiff's list of shareholders dated July 16, 2008"), the plaintiff A was holding 8,000 shares in the defendant's shares, the plaintiff's association 27,00 shares in the plaintiff's association, and the defendant's 13,00 shares in the plaintiff's association, and there was no change thereafter. However, the plaintiff's list of shareholders dated 23, 2008 ("the defendant's representative director's list of shareholders dated 30, 208") asserted that the plaintiff A was holding 1,00 shares in the defendant's list of shareholders dated 30, 208 ("the plaintiff's list of shareholders dated 30,000 shares in the plaintiff's association, 200 shares in the plaintiff's shares, and 200 shares in the plaintiff's shares in the plaintiff's association.
(2) In addition, the Plaintiff Association held 13,000 shares F at the time of preparing the register of shareholders on July 16, 2008, and asserted that the Plaintiff Association entrusted the name of its shareholder, and that the above title trust was terminated by serving the written application for modification of the purport and cause of the claim of November 17, 2009, and that the Defendant sought implementation of the transfer procedure for the said shares against the Defendant.
B. (1) The part of the Plaintiffs’ claim for confirmation of the Plaintiffs’ shareholder rights is presumed to be a shareholder of the company and the company bears the burden of proving the denial of the Plaintiffs’ rights in order to reverse that part.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da51505, Mar. 11, 2010). However, Defendant Company’s act on March 208.