2. As to the shares listed in paragraph 1 of the attached Table between the Plaintiff A and the Defendant C, the Plaintiff.

A. Defendant D Co., Ltd (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd”) is a company established around 1974 for the purpose of the disposal of general wastes, the cleaning of sewage and excreta septic tanks, etc.

B. The plaintiff A and the defendant C completed a marriage report on March 17, 1978, and they became married couple, and the defendant E and F are written in the family relations register as their children.

C. From around 1979, Plaintiff A was working as the representative director of Defendant Company, and on July 1, 1996, Plaintiff A was appointed as the chief director of G of the school juristic person. However, in relation to the operation of the said school juristic person, the said school juristic person was investigated on suspicion of occupational embezzlement, etc., and the said juristic person went to Indonesia on January 16, 199.

The register of shareholders of the Defendant Company on March 31, 2013 states that each of Defendant C holds 3,200 shares (32%) among the total 10,00 shares issued, Defendant E is 3,60 shares (36%) and Defendant F is 3,200 shares (32%).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 19 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Defendants asserted that, even if the shareholders of 1,200 shares among the shares listed in paragraphs (1) and (2) of the attached Table Nos. 1 and (3) of the attached Table No. 3 and the shares listed in the attached Table No. 1,200 shares (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant shares”) are confirmed as Plaintiff A, the judgment’s effect does not extend to the Defendant company that issued the said shares, and thus, it does not constitute an effective and appropriate means to eliminate anxietys as to the above Plaintiff’s rights or legal status. The Defendants’ lawsuit against the Defendant Company and F on the premise that Plaintiff A trusted 2,00 shares issued by Defendant Company No. 2 to the Plaintiff, and thus, the Plaintiff, the title trustee, was not entitled to seek confirmation of

If a person who has entrusted a shareholder's name with respect to the shares before the issuance of share certificates terminates a title trust agreement with the trustee, the shares are held.