1. Shares 2,00 shares in Defendant B among registered common shares of KRW 10,000 issued by Defendant D Co., Ltd.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 2, 2005, when the Plaintiff established Defendant D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd”), the Plaintiff shared the total amount of KRW 50 million in capital, and registered Defendant B as an internal director, Defendant C as an auditor, and registered Defendant B as an auditor. At the same time, Defendant B respectively held the title trust of KRW 200 in registered ordinary shares of the Defendant Co., Ltd, and KRW 550 in registered common shares of the Defendant Co., Ltd.

B. The Plaintiff expressed his/her intent to terminate the stock trust agreement with the Defendants by serving a duplicate of the instant complaint.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including virtual number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendants are the shareholders who received the shares of the Defendant Company from the Plaintiff, and as long as the Defendants asserted the claim in this case, the Plaintiff has the interest to seek confirmation as to the fact that the shareholders of the shares held in title trust are the Plaintiff. Since the Plaintiff terminated the stock trust agreement with the Defendants, the Defendant Company is obliged to implement the transfer procedure under the name of the Plaintiff as to the shares held in the name

3. The Defendants’ assertion on the Defendants acknowledged the fact that shares were held in title trust by the Plaintiff, but asserted that the shareholders’ right externally exists against the Defendants.

If a person who entrusted a shareholder’s name with respect to shares before the issuance of share certificates terminates a title trust agreement with a trustee, the shareholder’s right to the shares is returned to the title truster solely by the intent of termination (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da109708, Feb. 14, 2013). As long as the Plaintiff terminated a title trust agreement with the Defendants in this case, the Plaintiff’s right is deemed to return to the Plaintiff. Therefore,

4. The plaintiff's claim of this case is justified.