2. On December 14, 2004 in the case of the application for public summons No. 2004Kadan594 by the Incheon District Court Branch, the revocation of the judgment of nullification rendered on December 14, 2004 by the Gyeonggi Mining Co., Ltd. on the 174 share certificates as indicated in the attached list No. 1 of December 8, 1997, and all the defendants' applications for the judgment of nullification on the 174 share certificates are dismissed.

3. The part of the Plaintiff 2’s lawsuit seeking the revocation of the nullification judgment sentenced to the 1,00 share certificates Nos. 97-51, 97-52, 100 share certificates No. 97-41 through 97-50 issued on December 8, 197, and 10 share certificates No. 97-41 through 97-50, shall be dismissed.

4. Of the total litigation costs, the part arising between the Plaintiff 1 and the Defendants shall be borne by the Defendants, and the part arising between the Plaintiff 2 and the Defendants shall be borne by the Plaintiff 10%, and by the Defendants, by 90%.

A. Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 are kins, Defendant 3 is the head of the household, Defendant 4 is the head of the household, Defendant 5 is the head of the household, Defendant 9 is the head of the household, Defendant 9 is the head of the household, Nonparty 2 is the wife of Nonparty 2, who is the children of Nonparty 1, and Plaintiff 1 is the birth of Plaintiff 2.

B. The Gyeonggi Mining Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Game Mining Co., Ltd.”) was a company that started business on December 27, 1974, and the total number of issued stocks was 100,000 shares until May 12, 199. Nonparty 1, around 1998, requested Nonparty 6 of the Gyeonggi Mining Co., Ltd. to deliver 221 share certificates of 10,000 shares issued on December 8, 197 to Nonparty 3, his wife, who was in custody of the company’s safe, and keep the said share certificates in the depository of the house that Nonparty 3 had resided at the time.

C. The non-party 1 died on August 25, 2002, and his children around 2003, the non-party 2, who was the non-party 3, will temporarily copy 21 share certificates of the above 100,000 share certificates to the non-party 3. The non-party 2 delivered the above share certificates to the non-party 2 immediately after reproduction, and the non-party 3 demanded the return of the above share certificates to the non-party 2, but the non-party 2 did not comply with it. The non-party 2 was the non-party 4's representative director non-party 4 asked the return of the above share certificates to the non-party 2.

D. On February 2, 2004, the deceased non-party 1’s first heir (the deceased non-party 1’s wife, including the non-party 3 and the non-party 2), and the deceased non-party 1’s second heir except the deceased non-party 5 (the deceased non-party 1’s punishment and the deceased non-party 1’s substitute heir who had already died before the death) have renounced inheritance. On February 2, 2004, the Seoul Family Court Decision 2004Hu7407, which accepted the qualified acceptance report, and the non-party 5 was the only heir of the deceased non-party 1.

E. The Defendants filed a public summons with the Incheon District Court Branch No. 204KaGong594 on August 17, 2004 on the ground that they lost 174 share certificates of this case from 6 copies from 97-36 to 97-41 (Defendant 2), 1,000 share certificates from 97-42, and 182 shares from 200 share certificates from 182 shares in the Gyeonggi Mining Office, which were added from 174 share certificates of this case, and received a nullification judgment (hereinafter “instant nullification judgment”) from the above court on December 14, 2004.

F. On May 18, 2004, Plaintiff 1 acquired a total of 50,000 share certificates of 1,000 share certificates of 7% per annum with interest rate of 150,000,000, and 1,000 share certificates of 1,000 share certificates of 221 share certificates of 1,00,000 from May 18, 2006 to Plaintiff 2. The Plaintiff 1 filed a lawsuit against the Gyeonggi Mining Business claiming a change of ownership to the shareholders’ list of 1,00 share certificates of 50,00 share certificates of 50,00 share certificates of 1,00 shares (No. 97-1 through 97-30, No. 97-87, No. 97, Sept. 19, 208; Plaintiff 2 did not make reimbursement after the due date; Plaintiff 1 filed a lawsuit against the Gyeonggi Mining Business to change the shareholders’ list of 05,007 share certificates of 97.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence No. 1-1-14, Evidence No. 5-1-221, Evidence No. 10-1, 2, Evidence No. 1-2, Evidence No. 1-2, Evidence No. 1-2, Evidence No. 6-1 and 2, Evidence No. 6-2, Evidence No. 3 of Non-Party No. 3 of the first instance trial, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit filed by Plaintiff 2 on the part of Nos. 97-51, 97-52 and 97-41 through 97-50 of 100 of 1,00 of the lawsuit of this case is legitimate

Although Plaintiff 2 asserts that he is holding as of the 12 sale date of the above share certificates and sought the cancellation of the judgment of nullification of this case, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendants had been sentenced to the judgment of nullification as to each of the above share certificates. Therefore, the lawsuit on this part is unlawful.

3. As to this defense

A. The defendants asserted that the lawsuit of this case is illegal as the plaintiffs are not the legitimate holder of the sovereignty of this case, i.e., a legitimate holder of the sovereignty of this case, and therefore, the lawsuit of this case is filed by a person who is not a party standing. Thus, the judgment of nullification is null and void by the judgment and restores the same status as the plaintiff of the public summons. It does not confirm that the applicant of the public summons is the actual holder of the sovereignty, and even if he is not the actual holder of the sovereignty, the holder of the share certificates may file a lawsuit of objection against the judgment of nullification as an interested party. The plaintiffs are the holders of the share certificates of this case, which presented all the original copy of the share certificates to the defendants on May 19, 2009, the third date for pleading of the judgment of this case, and therefore only the actual holder of the share certificates can file a lawsuit against the judgment of nullification

B. In addition, the Defendants filed the instant lawsuit on August 20 of the same year after July 16, 2007 with the knowledge that there was a nullification judgment of this case. Thus, the instant lawsuit was filed after the lapse of the period for filing the lawsuit stipulated in Article 491(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, and thus, it is clear that the Plaintiffs received the instant complaint on August 20, 2007, as they protested against the nullification judgment of this case. However, according to the overall purport of the Plaintiff’s statement and arguments, the Plaintiffs did not know the above 1-1-3352 in the case of share transfer registration, and there was no other evidence that the Plaintiffs received the instant lawsuit on August 1, 2007 as a certified copy of the litigation records of this case on August 1, 2007 from the Incheon District Court’s application and the record keeping and records, and there was no other evidence to support the Plaintiffs’ existence of the instant judgment within 70-14, as alleged in the proviso of the Civil Procedure Act.

4. As to the merits

A. According to the above facts, although the defendants did not possess the share certificates of this case and did not lose them at the Gyeonggi Mining Office, they applied for a public summons and received the judgment of nullification of this case from the court of the public summons. Thus, this constitutes "when the judgment of nullification was rendered by fraudulent or illegal means" under Article 490 (2) 7 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. As to this, the Defendants asserted that the Gyeonggi Mining was in custody of the instant share certificates upon the delegation by the Defendants, but the Defendants were in indirect possession of the instant share certificates. The Plaintiffs asserted that the Gyeonggi Mining was in possession of the instant share certificates. The Plaintiffs asserted that the Defendants, which are only the nominal shareholders, did not issue and issue the share certificates to the deceased non-party 1, a company of the deceased non-party 1, a company of the deceased non-party 1, and the Defendants, who are merely the nominal shareholders, are not in charge of issuing and issuing the share certificates. Accordingly, it is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Gyeonggi Mining was in custody of the instant share certificates by the testimony of the non-party 3, the witness of the first instance trial alone and the testimony of the non-party 1, a witness of the first instance trial, were insufficient to prove that the Gyeonggi Mining was in custody of the instant

C. Even if the Defendants indirectly occupied the instant share certificates through the Gyeonggi Mining Business, according to the overall purport of evidence Nos. 10-1, 2, 13, 13, 6-1, 2, and 3 of evidence Nos. 10-2, and 1, 3 of the first instance trial witness testimony and arguments, Nonparty 3 issued the instant share certificates to Nonparty 2 at around 2003. Nonparty 2 delivered the instant share certificates to Nonparty 2 without returning it to Nonparty 3, who was his wife immediately after reproduction. Nonparty 4 did not bring Nonparty 2 to bring about the reproduction of the instant share certificates from Nonparty 3 around 204, and Nonparty 4 did not receive the horses that the instant share certificates were lost from Nonparty 2, and Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 did not report the loss of the instant share certificates to Nonparty 1, 204, and Defendant 1 and Nonparty 3 did not report the loss of the instant share certificates to Nonparty 4 of the Public Summons under the Civil Procedure Act.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the plaintiff 2's claim for the cancellation of the judgment of nullification against the 1,00 share certificates Nos. 97-51, 97-52, 100 share certificates No. 97-41 through 97-50 issued by the plaintiff 2 on December 8, 1997 is dismissed as it is unlawful, and the remaining claims of the plaintiff 2 and the claims of the plaintiff 1 are accepted for the reasons. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair differently from this conclusion, the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and all applications of the defendants' judgment of nullification against the share certificates of this case are dismissed, and the part of the claims added in the trial of the plaintiff 2's lawsuit of this case is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Landscaping Co., Ltd. (Presiding Judge)