2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

A. On November 15, 2010, the Defendant, along with ASEAN, carried out the franchise store business of “F” from around November 15, 201 to E, entered into a partnership business agreement with G and continued to run the said franchise store business after establishing the instant company on May 23, 201.

B. The total number of shares issued by the instant company is 10,000 shares, and G is wholly holding the entire shares, and around September 2012, after receiving KRW 50 million from the Plaintiff as the share purchase price, the Plaintiff and the Defendant respectively changed entry into a change of entry as to KRW 50 million (50%).

[Ground of recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 8, and 10 (including the number of branch offices), witness G of the first instance court, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that around August 2012, the Plaintiff purchased KRW 50 million from G, which owned all the shares of the instant company, and that KRW 50 million (50%) from which the Defendant and the Defendant had title trust in the name of the Defendant in accordance with the title trust agreement. As a duplicate of the instant complaint, the Plaintiff asserts that the said title trust agreement was terminated and the procedures for changing the name of the shareholder on the register of shareholders were implemented on the ground that the title trust agreement was terminated.

B. Determination is based on the premise that a person registered as a shareholder in the register of shareholders is presumed to be a shareholder in that company, and that a person who is registered as a shareholder in the register of shareholders bears the burden of proving the denial of shareholders' rights in order to reverse the presumption, so in order to claim that the name of a shareholder in the register of shareholders was trusted and that there was a separate shareholder in that name, the person who asserts such title trust relationship must prove the fact

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Da27755 Decided 06, 2007, etc.). Accordingly, in order to recognize the Plaintiff as a de facto shareholder in relation to 5,000 shares out of the shares of the instant company, for which a transfer of ownership is made under the name of the Defendant, unlike the entry in the register of shareholders, the Plaintiff and the Defendant pursuant to a title trust agreement with the Plaintiff.