1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant B is the representative director of Defendant D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”); Defendant C is an internal director.

B. At the time of incorporation of the Defendant Company around June 26, 1997, the Plaintiff’s list of shareholders of the Defendant Company was listed as shareholders of 4,000 shares listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant shares”); Defendant B; Defendant C; Defendant C’s 1,00 shares; Nonparty E; and Nonparty E’s 5,000 shares out of the instant shares in the Plaintiff’s name. However, around 2010, each shareholder’s name was changed in Defendant C’s name as to 1,00 shares out of the instant shares in the Plaintiff’s name.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry in Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including paper numbers, hereinafter the same as the same), the purport of the whole pleading

2. The parties' assertion

A. Although the Plaintiff’s assertion, Defendant B, and C did not have concluded a transfer and acquisition contract on the instant shares owned by the Plaintiff, the name of shareholder was changed in the future, and Defendant B and C are disputing the Plaintiff’s ownership of the instant shares.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff sought confirmation against Defendant B and C that the ownership of the instant shares was owned by the Plaintiff, and sought implementation of the transfer procedure on the register of shareholders regarding the instant shares from the Defendant Company.

B. Around December 1999, when the Plaintiff retired from the Defendant Company and was appointed as the representative director of F Co., Ltd., the Plaintiff received KRW 30 million in return for the transfer, etc. of the instant shares. Around 2010, the change of name on the register of shareholders was made with the Plaintiff’s consent.

3. Therefore, there is no evidence to prove the fact that the transfer and acquisition contract of the instant shares was concluded between the plaintiff, the plaintiff, the defendant, and the defendant C. However, in full view of Gap's evidence Nos. 3 to 6, Eul's evidence Nos. 1 to 5, and witness G's testimony, the plaintiff was in a position of director at the time of incorporation of the defendant company, and was a shareholder of the instant shares, and the plaintiff was the defendant around Dec. 1, 199.