The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, citing this case, is as follows, except for the part of the judgment of the court of first instance No. 5 (b) (hereinafter “the judgment”), which is the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing this in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be dried;

B. (1) The plaintiff asserts that whether E expresses his intention to cancel the share transfer contract of this case, the plaintiff expressed his intention to cancel the share transfer contract of this case against the plaintiff.

The records of Nos. 2, 3, and 14-1 through 3 (each record) and the result of the submission to K Bank by the court of first instance are insufficient to recognize that the actual owner of the instant shares is E, and that E has expressed to the Plaintiff the intention to cancel the stock transfer contract of this case and return the transfer proceeds, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

The plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

(2) Whether the contract of stock transfer was cancelled on the ground that the sale brokerage was impossible, the plaintiff asserts that the contract of stock transfer of this case was cancelled on the premise that the sale brokerage was stipulated in the special agreement of this case, and the purpose of the contract could not be achieved unless the sale brokerage was performed. If the sale brokerage was conducted smoothly, the plaintiff's shares were transferred to I, and if the sale brokerage was impossible, the sale brokerage was returned and the sale proceeds were returned. Thus, the plaintiff asserts that the sale negotiation of this case was impossible due to the cause attributable to E, and therefore, the plaintiff cancelled the contract of stock transfer of this case.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 13, and Eul evidence No. 1, Eul's shares out of the entire shares of "G" from May 2018, and shares owned by Eul and defendant out of the shares of the instant company.