1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, since the reasoning of this court's explanation is the same as the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for addition, modification, and modification as the following addition, modification, and modification, this is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

2. Parts added, modified or modified by the trial;

(a)on the third page of the judgment of the first instance court, the following shall be added above at the end of the third page:

If the non-party company did not pay any balance until the date of the payment of the balance of this case, the Plaintiff received the execution clause on July 21, 2014 in order to implement compulsory execution based on the above notarial deed stating the declaration of intention of “recognition of compulsory execution” by the non-party company.

B. On No. 4, the first instance court’s decision No. 10 amended “No. 4” with “No. 3.

C. From 5th to 20th of the judgment of the first instance court, the phrase “non-transfer of shares” is amended as follows.

The Defendants asserted that the Defendants did not transfer 1,000 shares in the name of I even if the Plaintiff had to transfer 30,000 shares of the Defendant Company to the non-party company in accordance with the instant contract, so they cannot comply with the Plaintiff’s request.

Where six months have elapsed after the incorporation of the company or the date of payment on new shares, shares before the issuance of share certificates may be transferred either by either party’s declaration of intent (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da29411, Sept. 10, 2002). A person who acquired such shares may solely file a claim for change of title with the company by proving that he/she acquired such shares without the other party’s cooperation, barring any special circumstance.

(See Supreme Court Decision 94Da47728 delivered on March 24, 1995). In full view of the arguments set forth in the evidence Nos. 6, 7, and 8, the whole purport of pleadings is as follows: (i) the shares of the Defendant Company are not issued despite the lapse of six months after the incorporation of the Company or the date of payment on new shares; and (ii) the Plaintiff is the Defendant Company on July 16, 2012.