All appeals filed by the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff and the counterclaim filed in the trial are dismissed.

All appeal costs and counterclaims.

In accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, the part concerning "1. Basic Facts," "2. The gist of the plaintiff's assertion," and "decision on the merits" among the grounds of the judgment of the first instance which partially accepted the judgment of the first instance.

The summary of the Defendant’s assertion as to this safety defense is only one of the corporations in which E, a representative director, has invested in whole KRW 800 million, and E, in fact, has lent the Plaintiff’s name in the register of shareholders to divide its responsibility. As such, the Plaintiff is not the Defendant’s actual shareholder, and the Plaintiff is not a party to a lawsuit seeking

In order to reverse this, it is presumed to be a shareholder of the company, which is registered as a shareholder in the register of shareholders of the relevant legal principles, there is a burden of proof to deny the shareholder's rights.

In order to recognize that the voting rights of the company cannot be exercised lawfully in relation to the company, notwithstanding being a shareholder listed on the register of shareholders, the mere fact that a third party, not a shareholder listed on the register of shareholders, has paid the subscription price for the shares is insufficient. In light of the internal relationship between the third party and shareholders listed on the register of shareholders, the background and purpose of the acquisition of shares and the registration on the register of shareholders, the contents of the exercise of rights as a shareholder after the registration on the register of shareholders, etc., a shareholder listed on the register of shareholders is merely lent only the name in the process of acquiring the shares, and it is merely a formal shareholder who is not entitled to exercise rights as

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Da51505 Decided March 11, 2010). The Defendant asserts that E paid in full the capital amount of KRW 800 million. The Defendant’s written evidence Nos. 2, 3, 1, 6, 7-1, 2, 9-1 through 5, 16-2, 3, 4, 18-1, 18-2, 2, 19-1 through 5, and 19-5, and the court prior to remand.