It is confirmed that each of the shares listed in the list is owned by the plaintiff and the defendants.

The costs of lawsuit.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The following facts may be acknowledged pursuant to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2-1, and 2 and the purport of the whole pleadings, unless there is a dispute between the parties or by the purport of Gap evidence No. 1, 2

1) F Co., Ltd. is a company established on April 30, 1987 for the purpose of export and import business, manufacture and sale of textile products, and the Plaintiff is the representative director or internal director of the above company from May 20, 1993 to the date of May 20, 1993, and the Defendants are the persons working in the above company. 2) The Plaintiff, as shown in the list of [Attachment], held title trust with each of 2,00 shares among the shares issued by the above company to Defendant B and C, and 4,000 shares among the shares issued by the above company to Defendant D and E.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant shares”). B.

Judgment

1) If a person who entrusted a shareholder’s name terminates a title trust agreement with a trustee, the right of the shareholder is immediately returned to the title truster and does not require a new legal act to transfer shares (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Da16386, Oct. 28, 1992). However, in cases where a shareholder’s name recorded in the shareholder’s registry contestss a substantial shareholder’s right, the substantial shareholder has a benefit to seek confirmation of the shareholder’s right against the shareholder’s name on the shareholder registry (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da109708, Feb. 14, 2013). 2) The fact that the title trust relationship was established between the Plaintiff and the Defendants with respect to the instant shares is apparent in the record that the duplicate of the instant complaint containing the intent of the Plaintiff to terminate the said title trust was delivered to the Defendants. Therefore, the said title trust was lawfully terminated.

Therefore, insofar as the shareholders' rights of the instant shares were returned to the Plaintiff, and the Defendants are disputing the attribution of the shareholders' rights as follows, the Plaintiff has a benefit to seek confirmation as to whether the instant shares were owned by the Plaintiff.

2. The Defendants’ assertion