1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is presumed to be a lawful holder of the instant share certificates pursuant to Article 336(2) of the Commercial Act, since the Plaintiff occupied the share certificates of the instant shares issued by the Defendant Company (C Co., Ltd.) on December 1, 1993 (hereinafter “instant share certificates”).

Therefore, Defendant Company is obligated to implement the transfer procedure for the instant shares to the Plaintiff, who is a legitimate holder of the instant shares.

B. The Defendant Company did not issue the instant shares at all, and the instant shares are not the shares issued by the Defendant Company but the shares forged by a third party and does not apply Article 336(2) of the Commercial Act.

Therefore, the Defendant Company is not obligated to implement the transfer procedure for the instant shares to the Plaintiff.

2. Determination:

A. Article 336(2) of the Commercial Act provides that the possessor of the share certificates shall be presumed to be a lawful holder. However, this is based on the premise that the share certificates are legally issued, and thus, it is deemed that the share certificates of this case are legally issued by the defendant.

According to Gap evidence Nos. 1 (including each number, hereinafter the same shall apply), the fact that the name and seal of the representative director of the defendant company is stated on the surface of the sovereignty of this case and at the bottom thereof, the fact that the name and seal of the representative director of the defendant company is affixed to the name of the representative director of the defendant company. There is no dispute between the parties that the seal affixed to the name of the representative director of the defendant company "D" is based on the official seal of the representative director of the defendant company. However, in light of the following circumstances, the share certificates of this case are not the share certificates issued lawfully by the defendant company, but the seal of the representative director of the defendant company who stolen by Eul, etc. is printed on the share certificate paper where E, etc. is printed.