1. The Plaintiff and the Defendants have the right to vote on the shares indicated in the separate sheet.

1. The fact that there is no dispute with him/her;

A. At the time of the incorporation of D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter, May 23, 2001), the total number of shares issued was 10,000 shares. However, on the shareholder registry, the Plaintiff held 3,50 shares, Defendant C’s 2,500 shares, Defendant B’s 1,500 shares, E’s 1,50 shares, and F’s 1,00 shares.

After that, as the non-party company increases its capital, the non-party company held 13,00 shares in the register of shareholders and 11,00 shares in the defendant B (hereinafter the above shares of the defendants) respectively.

B. Since the incorporation of the non-party company, the plaintiff is working as the representative director of the above company.

Defendant B is the Plaintiff’s wife, and Defendant C is the Plaintiff’s wife, G’s wife.

C. Meanwhile, at the time of the incorporation and capital increase of the non-party company, the purchase price of the shares was fully borne by the Plaintiff.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff asserted that the instant shares were held in title trust with the Defendants. Since the Defendants asserted that the said shares were owned by themselves, the title trust contract was terminated through the delivery of the instant complaint, and sought confirmation against the Defendants that the said shares were owned by the Plaintiff. As to this, the Defendants asserted that their shares were donated by the Plaintiff, and that they were not nominal trust.

B. We examine the following circumstances: (a) there is no dispute between the parties that the person who contributed to the purchase price of shares at the time of the incorporation and capital increase of the non-party company is the Plaintiff; and (b) the fact that the aforementioned facts were established by comprehensively taking into account the aforementioned facts and the purport of the entire arguments; (c) there is no actual exercise of shareholder rights as a shareholder of the non-party company since the incorporation of the non-party company; (b) there seems to be no special circumstance that the Plaintiff may give the Defendants the gift of the shares