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 D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) was established on August 23, 2007 for the purpose of housing construction projects, urban development projects, consulting and development projects related to real estate, real estate sale and sale, and the total number of shares issued by Defendant Co., Ltd. is 10,000 shares.

B. Meanwhile, at the time of incorporation of the Defendant Company, the shares of 5,000 common shares were allocated to Defendant B and E, and the shareholders’ roster of the Defendant Company is currently registered as Defendant B’s 5,000 shares and E’s 5,000 shares.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. On August 23, 2007, the date of the registration of the establishment of the Defendant Company, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 50 million from the Plaintiff’s agricultural bank account to the Defendant Company’s securities subscription deposit account, and paid the Defendant Company’s stock price. As such, the Plaintiff is the Plaintiff’s genuine shareholder of 10,000 shares of the Defendant Company. (2) The Plaintiff entrusted the name of 5,000 shares listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant shares”) to the Defendant B, a de facto wife, as the Plaintiff’s personal circumstance was not a situation for acquiring shares or taking office as an officer of the Defendant Company. As such, the Plaintiff terminated the instant title trust agreement by delivering a copy of the written complaint of this case.

3) Therefore, Defendant B sought confirmation that the shareholder’s rights of the instant shares were the Plaintiff, and the Defendant Company’s transfer procedure regarding the instant shares is sought against the Plaintiff. (B) Determination 1) The person who is registered as a shareholder in the shareholder registry is presumed to be the shareholder of the relevant company, and in order to reverse this, the said person bears the burden of proving that he/she denies the shareholder’s rights (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 84Meu2082, Mar. 26, 1985). In order to assert that the name of the shareholder in the shareholder registry was trusted and that there was a separate shareholder as a person who borrowed the name.