1. The Plaintiff and Defendant B verify the Plaintiff’s right to the shares listed in the separate sheet.

2...

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff operated a business with the trade name D from January 1, 1998, and established the Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd”) on July 14, 2008, and acquired D’s business.

At the time of incorporation of the defendant company, the total number of shares issued by the defendant company is 12,00 shares and 10,000 shares per share, and the plaintiff paid all shares issued by the defendant company. The register of shareholders of the defendant company is registered as the shareholders of the plaintiff, the defendant B, and E hold 4,00 shares, respectively.

B. Around October 2018, the Plaintiff sent to Defendant B a document containing an expression of intent to terminate the title trust agreement with respect to the Defendant Company’s shares (hereinafter “instant shares”) under Defendant B’s name. However, Defendant B denied the title trust of the instant shares.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to Gap evidence 12, purport of whole pleadings

2. According to the above findings, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff, as a beneficial shareholder of the instant shares, entrusted the name of the instant shares to Defendant B at the time of the establishment of the Defendant Company. Since the Plaintiff expressed its intent to terminate the title trust agreement on the instant shares, the Plaintiff returned to the Plaintiff the right of the shareholder as to the instant shares.

Since Defendant B is disputing the Plaintiff’s shareholder right, the Plaintiff has a benefit to seek confirmation against Defendant B, who is the shareholder of the instant shares on the shareholder registry, to the effect that the shareholder right of the instant shares is the Plaintiff. The Defendant Company is obligated to implement the transfer procedure for the instant shares to the Plaintiff, which is the beneficial shareholder of the instant shares

As to this, Defendant B alleged to the effect that the instant shares were donated, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this.

3. The decision is delivered with the assent of all participating Justices, on the ground that the plaintiff's claim is well-grounded.