1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Basic Facts

On April 2, 2007, Co., Ltd. D (hereinafter referred to as “D”) and E Co., Ltd. established C of 5000 shares issued jointly by Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Co., Ltd.”) and E Co., Ltd., and deposited KRW 20 million in the name of D, KRW 5 million in the name of the Defendant, KRW 25 million in the name of the Defendant, and KRW 25 million in the name of F, and the said money was paid as share capital.

D The Plaintiff and the Defendant, which owned 25% of D’s shares, agreed that G and F shall hold 1,250 shares of each of them, and registered in the register of shareholders in accordance with that content.

The plaintiff was appointed as the representative director and the defendant as the senior director.

On February 28, 2008, the defendant, while in office C, prepared and submitted a written oath as follows to C.

C C C C CH H’s ground for recognition is either a dispute or no clear dispute, and the Plaintiff asserts that: (a) the genuine shareholder of the Defendant C’s 1,250 shares (hereinafter “instant shares”) is the Plaintiff; and (b) the Defendant is merely a title trustee, the judgment of the purport of the entire pleadings, including D (20 million won) and C’s share price of KRW 25 million, which the Defendant and the Defendant (5 million) provided. The Plaintiff borrowed and repaid the share price of KRW 25 million; and (c) the payment of the said share price is the Plaintiff; (d) the Defendant’s 1,250 shares (hereinafter “instant shares”) is the true shareholder.

A person registered as a shareholder in the register 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, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 84Meu2082, Mar. 26, 1985). In order to assert that the name of a shareholder in the register of shareholders was trusted and that there was a separate shareholder in substance as the name borrower, the person who asserts such title trust relationship should prove the fact of borrowing the name

(Supreme Court Decision 2007Da27755 Decided September 6, 2007). The aforementioned evidence and the following circumstances revealed by evidence Nos. 5, 2, 6, 7, 8, and 9 are as follows.