1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows. The defendant's assertion added or emphasized by this court is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

In the 4th parallel 7th parallel 7th parallel - "similar certificater" shall be regarded as "reliciter".

The defendant and the defendant in the 7th page 9 shall be referred to as "K".

8. The 6th parallel " August 5, 2013" shall be changed to " January 2, 2013".

The 2015Gahap558 "2015Gahap6558" at the bottom of the nine pages shall be "2015Gahap6558".

The term "this case transfer agreement" at the bottom of 10 pages is advanced into "this case agreement".

The defendant at the lower end of the 11th page "the above defendant" shall be raised to "self-defense".

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. 1) The Defendant’s assertion that the change of entry does not constitute an unjust rejection of entry) was demanded by the Plaintiff to change the entry of 5% of the Defendant’s shares in C in addition to 5% of the Defendant’s shares in title trust (the shares in this case) that C had not received notice of transfer from C around 2009.

The defendant was unable to enter into a transfer of ownership only with respect to the shares of this case in the situation where it is difficult to ascertain whether the plaintiff acquired shares from C at the time of 2009, or any shares were acquired.

Furthermore, the Plaintiff failed to prove the fact that the resolution of the board of directors is necessary for the transfer of the instant shares, which has the character of a meritorious share, even though it was well aware, and the dispute between D and C over the transfer of shares and the Defendant was continued after 209.

In light of such various circumstances, the defendant's rejection of the plaintiff's transfer request is justifiable until the relevant dispute is closed.

(1) The shares of this case are offered for the common purpose of D, C, and D, C’s co-ownership or quasi-ownership. Thus, C, without the consent of D, cannot be transferred to the Plaintiff without the consent of D.

(2) The foregoing shall not apply.