1. Of the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff seeks confirmation as a shareholder of 60,000 shares issued by the Defendant out of the total number of shares issued by the Defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff, upon the recommendation of Nonparty C, who was his wife from around 1994 to April 2003, was employed as a director at the Defendant Company for which the above C was a representative director.

B. The changes in the shares and equity shares reported by the Defendant Company to the tax office from 1996 to 199, the Plaintiff acquired 6,500 shares owned by the Defendant Company from among the shares issued by the Defendant Company (ordinary shares and 5,000 won per share) around December 1995, and additionally acquired 13,500 shares around June 1996 (total share 20,000 shares), and on December 12, 1998, the Defendant acquired 20,00 shares in addition to 20,00 shares (hereinafter “instant shares”).

C. Around March 2003, Defendant Company requested Nonparty D, a certified public accountant, to take over all the shares of this case at the tax office around December 31, 2002, and reported changes in the shares and equity shares.

Around March 2004, the Plaintiff filed a complaint with the investigative agency against the above D on the grounds that the above D forged and used the above detailed statement on the state of fluctuation, and then withdrawn the complaint against the above D around July 2004 and instigated the above C to forge the above documents again around that time.

At the time, the plaintiff argued that the investigative agency paid 10 million won for the shares and allocated 20,000 shares of the defendant company, and that the number of shares for the capital increase in 2000 increased to 40,000 shares was changed to the above shares of this case at will without the plaintiff's consent, but the office of the office of the office of the office of the branch office of the office of the district prosecutor's office, which is the competent investigative agency, stated that the plaintiff paid 10,000 won shares for the above shares of this case at will. However, the office of the office of the office of the office of the branch office of the office of the branch office of the office of the district prosecutor's office, which is the investigation agency, did not submit evidentiary documents, and there is no evidence to acknowledge the payment of the plaintiff's shares. The plaintiff

Mountainouss: Facts without any dispute, A, 1 to .