1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant provided only a formal name with respect to the shares listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter "the shares of this case"), and that the actual shareholders of the shares of this case are the plaintiff, and thus, the plaintiff's objection is sought.

2. Determination

A. A person registered as a shareholder in the register of shareholders is presumed to be a shareholder of the company, and in order to reverse this, the person has the burden of proof to deny his/her shareholder rights.

(see Supreme Court Decisions 84Meu2082, Mar. 26, 1985; 2007Da51505, Mar. 11, 2010). Therefore, in order to assert that the name of a shareholder in the register of shareholders was trusted and that there was a separate shareholder as the name borrowed from that name, the party asserting such title trust relationship should prove the fact of borrowing the name in the name of the nominal owner.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da91916 Decided March 24, 2011). B.

On the other hand, the fact that the Plaintiff stated the instant shares in the register of shareholders C as the Defendant owned is not a dispute between the parties. However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is that the name of the Defendant was trusted, and that the actual shareholder is the Plaintiff, and there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Rather, in full view of the purport of the argument in the statement No. 5-1 of the evidence No. 5-1, it is acknowledged that the Plaintiff and the Defendant established C and operated D Private Teaching Institutes, set up 50:50 investments of the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and that the Plaintiff paid the Defendant’s investments on behalf of the Plaintiff prior to the full payment of the Defendant’s investments, and the Defendant agreed to pay interest on the amount paid by the Plaintiff on January 31, 2012 to the Plaintiff from January 31, 2012. Accordingly, the Defendant acquired the shares of this case by borrowing money for the purpose of engaging in the business of the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s domestic business, and thereafter, the Defendant

Even if such circumstance alone, the Defendant is not a shareholder of the instant shares.