1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B is at least 3,000 common shares of DaesungS Co., Ltd. (at a par value of 5,000 per share).

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 2, 1997, the Plaintiff respectively held a title trust with Defendant B, with 1,500 common shares of DaesungS Co., Ltd. (the par value of KRW 5,000 per share) and 1,500 common shares of DaesungM Co., Ltd. (the par value of KRW 5,000 per share) on August 8, 1998.

B. On August 8, 1998, the Plaintiff trusted 500 common shares of DaesungS Co., Ltd. (in a face value of 5,000 won per share) to Defendant C in title trust.

C. A duplicate of the instant complaint containing the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to terminate each of the above title trust agreements was served on February 28, 2017 on the Defendants.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 2 through 4 (including each branch number in the case with a branch number) and the purport of whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, each title trust agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants was lawfully terminated on February 28, 2017, on which a copy of the complaint of this case was served, and thus, the Defendants are obligated to deliver each of the registered shares to the Plaintiff.

Although the Defendants asserted that a company should receive dividend or price due to increase in the value, there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff agreed to pay the Defendants the price for the title trust.

Rather, according to the statement No. 3-1 and No. 2 of the evidence No. 3-2, the Defendants agreed not to claim all fees and remuneration, such as dividends on trust shares, to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is difficult to accept.

3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.