1. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.

2. The shareholders' rights of C’s shares listed in the separate sheet of C.

1. The fact that the Plaintiff held title trust with the shares listed in the attached list of C Issuance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant shares”) to the Defendant is not a dispute between the parties, and in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, it is recognized that the Plaintiff expressed to the Defendant the intent to terminate title trust with respect to the instant shares by delivery of the instant complaint.

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant is obligated to deliver the shares of this case to the plaintiff as the title trust of the shares of this case is terminated. Thus, the plaintiff's shares for which the plaintiff seeks to deliver are considered to mean the share certificates as securities representing shareholders' rights. Thus, there is no evidence to prove that C has issued the share certificates. Thus, the plaintiff's primary claim for delivery is without merit.

B. According to the facts of the judgment on the conjunctive claim, the plaintiff expressed his intention to terminate the title trust of the shares of this case, and thus, the right to the shares of this case was returned to the plaintiff upon the arrival of the intention to terminate the title trust. Thus, the defendant is dissatisfied with this. Thus, the plaintiff has the interest to seek confirmation that the above shareholders' right is the plaintiff.

Even if the Plaintiff held a title trust with the shares of this case, the Defendant filed the instant lawsuit to the Defendant at the time ten years have elapsed from the date of the title trust, and asserted that the title trust of this case had already expired. However, the person who entrusted the name of the shareholder may terminate the title trust at any time. If the title truster terminates the title trust contract with the trustee, the right of the shareholder is immediately returned to the title truster and the new legal act is required for the transfer of shares, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case does not fall under the extinctive prescription.