1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of this court as to this part of the basic facts is stated in the judgment of the court of first instance.

The reasoning of the first instance judgment is the same as that of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for changing “G” as “stock company G” (hereinafter “G”), thereby citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The reasoning of this court as to this part of the plaintiff's assertion is stated, and the ground of appeal No. 2-A.

Article 2-A of the Reasons for the Judgment of the first instance, except for changing the "2014" of the first instance judgment to the "2012 around".

Since it is identical to the part of paragraph, it is quoted as it is.

3. A person registered as a shareholder in the registry of shareholders is presumed to be a shareholder of the company in question and, in order to reverse this, there is a burden of proof on the part of denying the shareholder’s right (see Supreme Court Decision 84Meu2082, Mar. 26, 1985). In order to assert that the shareholder’s name in the registry of shareholders was trusted and that there was a separate shareholder in fact as the name borrowed, the person who is registered as a shareholder in the registry of shareholders must prove the nominal name borrowed from the part of claiming the

However, even if a third party, who is not a shareholder on the register of shareholders, actually engaged in the payment of new stocks, such act is based on the underlying cause of the act, and as such, various forms of legal relations, such as a title trust relationship, a business relationship with which capital is the investment obligation of one party, or a simple loan relationship with the acquisition price of new stocks, can be presented. Thus, it cannot be readily concluded that the third party is a substantial shareholder based on the title trust relationship with the shareholder’s name solely on the fact that the third party merely engaged in the payment of new stocks without examining the underlying relationship

Therefore, in order to recognize a third party as a de facto shareholder unlike the entry in the list of shareholders, the third party's act of paying new shares by a third party is conducted on the part of disputing shareholders' rights on the list of shareholders.