1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the subsequent order of payment shall be revoked.

1. The reasoning for this part of this Court’s explanation is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion did not have disposed of shares since the acquisition of 300 shares of the Defendant Company.

The Plaintiff did not affix a seal to the share acquisition agreement (Evidence 1; hereinafter “instant share acquisition agreement”) stating that 300 shares of the above 30 shares are sold to F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”).

However, on April 26, 2013, the Defendant requested the Korea Securities Depository to revise “Plaintiff (A)” registered as a shareholder of 300 shares in the register of shareholders without permission, without undergoing verification procedures against the Plaintiff.

Upon the defendant's request, the list of shareholders of the defendant managed by the Korea Securities Depository was revised, and 300 shares were entered into the Hyundai Securities Depository account of C, and C acquired it in good faith.

Ultimately, the Plaintiff suffered loss of 300 shares due to the Defendant’s wrong request for correction of the shareholder registry, and the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 23,850,000 (=79,500 x 300 shares) equivalent to the share price as of April 26, 2013.

B. Around December 1998, the Plaintiff asserted that 300 shares of the Defendant Company owned by the Plaintiff were transferred to D.

The "certificate of confirmation" was issued to the members of the employee stock ownership association who retired without transferring their shares at the time of retirement, but the above certificate of confirmation was not issued to the plaintiff, and the deposited shares in the plaintiff's account were withdrawn on December 29, 200 and no longer existed.

Around April 2013, the defendant demanded the return of shares by C to verify that C’s shares remain in the register of shareholders due to an error by the past employee stock ownership association and a person in charge of shares.