1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company that engages in the development of new technology by using molecular Organismsaology, etc., and the Defendant, on December 1, 2016, was employed as the vice president of the Plaintiff company and went away on May 15, 2017.

B. On November 27, 2016, before the Defendant entered the Plaintiff Company C’s membership, the director of the Plaintiff Company transferred 1,000 shares listed in the separate sheet of the Plaintiff Company (hereinafter “instant shares”) to the Defendant without compensation. The current shares are listed in the name of the Defendant in the register of shareholders.

【In the absence of any dispute, entry in the evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3-1, and 4, and the purport of all pleadings】

2. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff donated 1,000 shares among the Plaintiff’s shares held by directors C of the Plaintiff Company as Stockholm options to the Defendant.

The above transfer of shares is a gift under the condition that the defendant would hold office in the Plaintiff Company for at least two years, and is a gift contract under the condition that the defendant would retire before that transfer.

However, since the defendant was no longer than six months after becoming a member, the conditions for cancellation were fulfilled, and the shares of this case were returned to C, a donor.

Meanwhile, as C donated the instant shares to the Plaintiff on June 19, 2018, the ownership of the instant shares belonged to the Plaintiff.

Nevertheless, as the defendant asserts that he is a shareholder, it is sought to confirm that the plaintiff is a shareholder of the instant shares.

3. Determination

A. As to the Plaintiff’s aforementioned assertion regarding the defense prior to the merits, the Defendant, on June 19, 2018, deemed that the instant shares were donated to the Plaintiff from C to the Plaintiff on the ground that the said shares constitute a litigation trust that transferred shares for the purpose of conducting procedural acts, and thus, the defense prior to the merits is unlawful.

However, in light of the fact that the plaintiff asserted that the shares of this case were owned by the plaintiff from the plaintiff's complaint at the beginning, whether the plaintiff can own his own shares lawfully by such a method.