1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. The total cost of a lawsuit shall be borne individually by each party.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 24, 2010, the Defendant confirmed that the Plaintiff owned shares of 39.38% of the Defendant’s shares (the holding shares of 7,875, shares of 39,375,000), and issued a notice of convening a regular shareholders’ meeting on March 27, 2013.

B. On December 31, 201, the Defendant’s register of shareholders, out of total 20,000 shares issued, the Plaintiff entered 7,875 shares (hereinafter “instant shares”) as the Plaintiff’s father and the Defendant’s representative director, D 240 shares (1.2%) as the Plaintiff’s mother, and D 50 shares (2.5%) as the Plaintiff’s mother, and F 5,375 shares (26.875%) as the Plaintiff and South-North Korea-related parties, and G 6,010 shares (30.05%) as the Plaintiff’s father and the Defendant’s representative director.

C. On May 14, 2015, D notified the Plaintiff that “D will transfer the instant shares to the Plaintiff in the name of D, as D had it trusted the instant shares, but terminated the title trust.” On July 9, 2015, the Plaintiff deleted the Plaintiff from the Defendant’s shareholder registry on July 9, 2015, and the Plaintiff changed the ownership of the shares owned by the Plaintiff in the name of D.

Meanwhile, around 2014, D asserted that the instant shares were held in title trust with the Plaintiff, and filed a lawsuit for confirmation of ownership with the Seoul Central District Court No. 2014da48505.

On December 17, 2015, the appellate court of the above case (Seoul Central District Court 2015Na42475) sentenced the plaintiff to dismiss D on the grounds that the plaintiff is a de facto shareholder of the shares of this case. While the plaintiff appealed, the appellate court dismissed the appeal and became final and conclusive on the ground that D was dismissed.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1 through 2, 4, 5, 10, 16 items, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts of the judgment on the cause of the claim, the plaintiff is recognized to be in the shareholder status of this case. Thus, the defendant is at the par value of 5. per share per share to the plaintiff.