The defendant shall implement the transfer procedure by changing the name of shares listed in the attached list to the plaintiff.

2...

1. Around January 7, 1999, the Plaintiff established the Defendant.

The Plaintiff, at its own expense, held in title trust the sum of 10,00 shares listed in the Defendant’s Schedule (C’s name 3,500 shares, D’s name 1,600 shares, E’s name 1,500 shares, F’s name 1,70 shares, G name 1,700 shares, 1,700 shares, and G name 1,700 shares).

Around August 2007, the Plaintiff paid the share capital at its own expense and held title trust to the title trustee of this case on the aggregate of 50,000 shares listed in the Defendant’s attached list (C name 17,500 shares, D name 8,00 shares, E name 7,50 shares, F name 8,500 shares, G name 8,50 shares, 8,500 shares, and 8,500 shares).

On September 2020, the Plaintiff terminated each share trust agreement concluded with the title trustee of this case.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 and 3 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of claim, barring any special circumstance, the Plaintiff’s right to the shares listed in the separate sheet was returned to the Plaintiff upon termination of the above stock title trust agreement. Thus, the Defendant who issued the above shares is obligated to implement the transfer procedure by changing the name of the shares listed in the separate sheet to the Plaintiff

The Defendant asserts to the effect that a person who is not a shareholder on the register of shareholders cannot exercise shareholders' rights and thus cannot comply with the Plaintiff’s request for change of shareholders. However, the Plaintiff’s right to the shares subject to title trust is returned to the title truster only by the declaration of termination thereof. A beneficial shareholder may solely file a claim for change of shareholders against the company by proving that he/she is a beneficial shareholder without the need for the shareholder’s cooperation (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da16386, Oct. 27, 1992).

3. The plaintiff's claim is justified.