Of them, the Plaintiff and Defendant B’s wife, as the Plaintiff’s wife, entered in the register of shareholders as the Plaintiff’s shareholder with respect to 2,000 shares.

The instant company issued 15,00 shares of new shares on September 16, 2010 and 15,000 shares of new shares on November 3, 2010, and increased the shares issued to 35,000 shares of new shares on November 3, 2010.

Of them, 14,000 shares are listed in the register of shareholders as shareholders by the Plaintiff, E, 7,000 shares.

On July 1, 2011, 10,150 out of 14,000 shares in the name of the Plaintiff was transferred to F, 3,150 shares to Defendant B, and 700 shares to G.

700 G name was transferred to Defendant C around November 28, 2013.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1 and 2 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The fact that the beneficial shareholder of 700 shares in the name of Defendant C among the shares issued by the instant company, determined as to the claim against Defendant C, is the Plaintiff is no dispute between the parties concerned.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking confirmation of the status of share holder is justified.

3. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B

A. On November 6, 2008, the Plaintiff’s assertion by the parties, and F, operated a H restaurant under the name of the Plaintiff as the Plaintiff’s partner with Defendant B. The Plaintiff and F established the instant company.

At the time of the incorporation of the Company, the Plaintiff and the F bear the necessary expenses for the establishment of the Company, and the Defendant B is responsible for the operation of the Company, and the profits were to have 60%, 60%, and 40%, respectively.

The shares of the instant company were distributed to the Plaintiff at the ratio of 40%, 20% to F, and 40% to Defendant B’s wife.

Around July 1, 2011, Defendant B forged a sales contract that sells 3,150 shares of the Plaintiff’s shares to himself/herself and transferred his/her name in the future.