1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a shareholder of C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”), who was the representative director of C, and the Defendant was working as C’s management director from around 2008 to January 2013.

B. On December 30, 2015, a written contract stating the intent to sell C shares owned by the Plaintiff to E (1,000 shares), F (1,00 shares), G (1,00 shares), and Defendant (1,100 shares) was written respectively.

C. On June 27, 2017, the Defendant transferred the said shares 1,100 shares (hereinafter “instant shares”) to H.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 11, 13, 21 through 24, 33, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff held the title trust of the instant shares to the Defendant.

Nevertheless, the Defendant transferred the instant shares owned by the Plaintiff to H and embezzled.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the value of the shares of this case 298,785,786 won and delay damages for the violation of the title trust agreement and the conjunctive tort compensation.

The plaintiff is seeking two compatible claims in the primary and conjunctive order, and it is interpreted to the purport of claiming as above. However, since the above two arguments are common issues, the "whether the title trust of the shares of this case" is common issues, the above two arguments are examined together with the following.

B. The Defendant did not receive title trust of the instant shares from the Plaintiff.

3. Determination as to the cause of action

A. A person registered as a shareholder in the register of shareholders is presumed to be the shareholder of the company, and in order to reverse this, the person bears the burden of proving that he/she denies his/her shareholder's rights. Thus, in order to assert that the name of the shareholder in the register of shareholders was trusted and that there was a separate shareholder as the name borrowed, the person who asserts such title trust relationship should prove the fact of borrowing

Supreme Court Decision 201No. 8. 29.