1. Defendant B and C are the Plaintiff’s shares listed in the separate shares list issued by Defendant D.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff is the representative director of the defendant company.

B. In 196, the Plaintiff trusted 1,500 shares of the Defendant Company to Defendant C in title trust.

C. The Plaintiff respectively held in title trust the Defendant B’s shares of 1,500 shares of the Defendant Company in 197, and around January 200, 1,000 shares of the Defendant Company.

On October 8, 2015, the Plaintiff notified Defendant B and C of the termination of title trust.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the title trust agreement on each of the shares listed in the order (hereinafter “instant shares”) was lawfully terminated on October 8, 2015, and thus, the shareholder of the instant shares is the Plaintiff. As long as Defendant B and C are dissatisfied with such agreement, the Plaintiff has a benefit to seek confirmation. The Defendant Company is obligated to implement the transfer registration procedure changing the name of the shareholder listed in the shareholder registry to the Plaintiff as to each of the above shares.

B. As to Defendant B and C’s assertion, Defendant B and C asserts that: (a) the Plaintiff provided benefits from the title trust of shares for a long time; and (b) the Defendant’s attempt to return shares without any consideration constitutes an abuse of rights.

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff intended to pay for the title trust to the Defendants, and the mere fact that the title trust was made for a long time does not constitute an abuse of rights.

The above defendants' assertion is without merit.

3. The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all.