The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff’s transfer claim on the transfer of shares of this case constitutes the claim for approval of the transferee of shares under Article 335-7(1) of the Commercial Act, on the grounds as stated in

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and the record, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the request for change of holders and the request for approval by the transferee.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

(a) In cases where the transfer of shares requires the approval of the board of directors, any person who acquires such shares may request in writing the company to approve such acquisition, specifying the class and number of such shares;

(Article 335-7(1) of the Commercial Act. Where a company refuses to approve the acquisition of shares, a person who acquires shares may request the company to purchase such shares within 20 days of receipt of notice of refusal to approve the acquisition of shares.

(Article 335-7(2) and Article 335-2(2) and (4) of the Commercial Act. Here, since appraisal rights have been created, a sales contract for shares is established without the consent of the company upon exercise thereof immediately.

(see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da94953, Apr. 28, 2011). Moreover, the shareholder’s position ought to be deemed not to be at the time of exercising the appraisal right, but at the time of receiving the purchase price of the relevant shares from the company.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2017Da270916 Decided February 28, 2018). B.

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court determined that, when exercising appraisal rights pursuant to Article 335-2 (4) of the Commercial Act, the status of shareholders should be transferred only when the purchase price of the relevant shares is paid.

In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on appraisal rights, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. Conclusion.