1. The Plaintiff’s appeal regarding the claim for share transfer against Defendant B among the judgment of the first instance is dismissed.

2. This.

1. The reasoning for this part of this Court’s reasoning is as follows, and this part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is the same as that of the corresponding part of the judgment, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The 4th to 11th of the judgment of the first instance, “H has dismissed (comfore) the (comfore) portion” of the 8th to 11th of the judgment of the first instance (comfore 2010 Gohap7160).

“H, the Defendant B invested KRW 50 million, and agreed to transfer 45% of the shares of the Defendant Company to himself/herself, and agreed to title trust the instant permission with Defendant B on November 9, 2009 (hereinafter “former Agreement on the Plaintiff’s Claim”).

H) The agreement between Defendant B (hereinafter “instant agreement”) with the following content:

The content of the instant agreement, H and Defendant B asserted that they concluded the said agreement. The content of G will title trust the instant right to permission in the future of J, and Defendant B would invest KRW 500 million in capital, and KRW 300 million out of KRW 500 million will be used for H’s debt reduction, and KRW 200 million will be invested in the company. The date of payment of capital KRW 300 million should be immediately changed and shall be paid within 20 million in principle. According to the investment shares, H45%, Defendants B45%, and K10% should be changed to F, and the name of the company shall be changed to H and its representative shall not be transferred to another person. The said agreement was null and void, and both Defendant B and Defendant B claimed for change of the name of the instant right to permission in the instant case against the Defendant Company, and the lower court dismissed the claim of the first instance court on March 1, 201 through 206.