The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising from the intervention is.

1. The gist of the parties’ assertion and the Plaintiff’s Intervenor asserts that the loan certificate or the stock transfer contract is invalid, which is the document that caused the registration of the shares listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant shares”) in Defendant D with respect to the shares indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant shares”), and that the Plaintiff has the right to shareholders

As to this, the defendants asserted that the above loan certificate and the share transfer contract are valid, and the shareholders' rights are against the defendant D.

2. The facts below the facts of recognition are either in dispute between the parties or in accordance with the purport of Gap 1 to 4 and the entire pleadings.

F E E F F F E E E D B C B C

3. Determination

A. A person registered as a shareholder in the register of shareholders is presumed to be a shareholder in the register of shareholders, and in order to reverse this, he/she has the burden of proving the denial of his/her shareholder's rights.

(2) In light of the above legal principles, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the establishment of the authenticity of the seal imprinting, i.e., the act of affixing the seal is based on the will of the person in charge of the preparation, barring special circumstances, if the seal imprinting on the private document was affixed by his/her own seal, and the authenticity of the entire document is presumed to have been established pursuant to Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act if the authenticity of the seal imprinting is presumed to have been established by the person other than the person in charge of the preparation, or if it is proved that the act of affixing the seal was made by the person other than the person in charge of the preparation, or that the document was made without the intention of the person in charge of the preparation or against the will of the person in charge of the preparation, and thus, it is necessary for the person who asserts that the document is forged to prove that the document was affixed actively against the will of the person in

Supreme Court Decisions 87Meu707 Decided December 22, 1987; 88Meu6815 Decided April 25, 1989; 94Da24770 Decided March 10, 1995; 94Da2470 Decided May 29, 2001.