1. It is confirmed that the shareholder's rights for each of the shares listed in the separate sheet were against the Plaintiff.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

Facts of recognition

On June 16, 1992, the Plaintiff established an I Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”) for the purpose of the soil construction business, reinforced concrete construction business, etc.

The Plaintiff: (a) each title trust (hereinafter “instant title trust”) with Defendant B (only before the opening of name J, hereinafter “Defendant B”), 6,400 shares of the instant company; (b) 31,200 shares among the shares of the instant company; (c) 28,80 shares to Defendant D; (d) 8,000 shares to Defendant E; (d) 110,000 shares to Defendant F; (e) 22,00 shares to Defendant G; and (e) 40,000 shares to Defendant H, respectively.

As of November 20, 2019, the closing date of argument in the instant case, Defendant B implemented capital reduction from 380,000 shares to 30,000 shares. As of November 20, 2019, Defendant B owned 5,057 shares of the instant company; Defendant C was 24,633 shares; Defendant D was 22,737 shares; Defendant E was 6,313 shares; Defendant F was 86,841 shares; Defendant G was 17,369 shares; Defendant H was 31,57 shares (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant shares”); Defendant C was 6,313 shares; Defendant F was 86,841 shares; Defendant H was 17,369 shares; and Defendant H was 31,577 shares ( collectively referred to as “instant shares”).

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 2 (if there are serial numbers, including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the ground for a claim to determine the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff held each title trust with the Defendants, and the Plaintiff expressed to the Defendants around March 2019 that the Defendants would terminate the title trust of this case, or at least as a delivery of a duplicate of the complaint of this case, the fact that each of the above title trust was terminated does not conflict between the parties.

Therefore, the shareholders' rights of the instant shares were returned to the Plaintiff, a title truster, following the termination of each title trust.

As long as the Defendants are dissatisfied with this, the Plaintiff has a benefit to seek confirmation of the shareholders' rights of the instant shares against the Defendants.

The Defendants’ assertion are determined in relation to the Plaintiff’s relationship with the instant company.