A. On December 22, 200, a limited liability company C (hereinafter “instant limited liability company”) established for the purpose of manufacturing and selling automobile parts and providing services, etc. At the time of the establishment, the list of investors of the limited liability company of this case stated that the Plaintiff holds 1,500 units of investment, D 1,200 units of investment (10,000 units of investment), and E 300 units of investment.

B. On February 12, 2007, the Plaintiff acquired the 1,200 investment shares of the instant limited liability company from D, and thereafter, did so in the name of the Defendant.

C. On February 22, 2007, the instant limited liability company increased its capital by KRW 270,000,000, and in the process, the Plaintiff was in the name of KRW 13,500, out of the said capital increase.

On the other hand, on February 22, 2007, the Defendant confirmed that the Plaintiff was in title trust with respect to 14,700 shares of the instant limited liability company, and drafted and issued to the Plaintiff a letter of intent to at any time allow the Plaintiff or the person designated by the Plaintiff to change the name of the said limited liability company and not to make a claim for the said shares upon the Plaintiff’s request.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the above recognition, the Plaintiff trusted 14,700 shares of the instant limited liability company (i.e., 1,200 shares) to the Defendant, and the Plaintiff’s delivery of a copy of the instant complaint to the Defendant on December 6, 2016, including the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to terminate a title trust agreement with respect to the Defendant’s shares, is apparent in the record. As such, the title trust agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on 14,700 shares in the instant limited liability company’s shares was terminated.

However, the defendant is disputing the fact of title trust of this case while denying it. The plaintiff has a benefit to seek confirmation of the right of employee as to 14,700 accounts under the name of the defendant.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable.