1. It is confirmed that the shareholders' rights regarding the shares listed in the separate sheet No. 1 and the shares listed in the separate sheet No. 2 are the Plaintiff.

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. (1) On May 13, 2009, the Plaintiff trusted 3,000 shares listed in the attached Table 1 list to Defendant B, and 3,00 shares listed in the attached Table 2 list to Defendant C on April 30, 2012.

(2) Around January 2017, the Plaintiff expressed to the Defendants a wish to terminate each of the instant title trust agreements, and around that time, the said wish reached the Defendants.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

B. (1) The de facto shareholder who trusted the name of a shareholder is entitled to seek confirmation of shareholders’ rights against the name of a shareholder on the shareholder registry in a case where the name of a shareholder registered on the shareholder registry substantially contests shareholders’ rights, and this does not change on the ground that the company that issued the relevant shares can seek implementation of the transfer procedure.

(2) As seen earlier, the right of shareholders of each of the instant shares under the name of the Defendants was returned to the Plaintiff, and as long as the Defendants dispute over the attribution of shareholders’ rights, the Plaintiff has a benefit to seek confirmation of shareholders’ rights against the Defendants, who are shareholders on the shareholder registry, who are shareholders on the shareholder registry.

C. (1) The Defendants’ assertion on the Defendants’ assertion (1) although the Plaintiff agreed to pay remuneration as a registration officer in return for the title trust with each of the instant shares to the Defendants, the instant title trust agreement is null and void, and accordingly, the instant shares are owned by the Defendants.

(2) the sale; and

The Plaintiff shall pay the Defendants the remuneration for the registered officers.