Of the lawsuit in this case, the confirmation of the existence of shareholders' rights against Defendant B, the existence of in-house directors' abandonment, and the existence of abandonment.

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) was incorporated on January 21, 2015, and the Plaintiff was registered as an internal director of the Defendant Company on January 27, 2015.

B. On June 24, 2015, the Plaintiff became the nominal owner of 30,00 common shares issued by the Defendant Company (hereinafter “instant shares”) from around June 24, 2015.

[Grounds for recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence 1 and 7 (including branch numbers), and the purport of the whole pleading

2. On January 2015, the Plaintiff’s assertion entered into a title trust agreement with Defendant C, upon receiving a request to lend the name of nine months from Defendant C, to the effect that the Plaintiff is in the position of inside directors and shareholders in the name of the Defendant Company. Accordingly, the Plaintiff was registered as the inside director of the Defendant Company and became the nominal owner of the instant shares.

However, Defendant C does not take any measure despite the Plaintiff urged Defendant C to transfer his name due to the arrival of the time limit agreed by Defendant C.

As the management status of the defendant company becomes worse, the plaintiff is forced to collect taxes in arrears by collecting delinquent taxes from the defendant company as the second taxpayer of the defendant company ( oligopolistic shareholder under Article 39 of the Framework Act on National Taxes) and is being urged by creditors as a joint guarantor for the defendant company's obligations.

Therefore, the Plaintiff terminated a title trust agreement with Defendant C through the service of the duplicate of the instant complaint. ① The Plaintiff did not have the Plaintiff’s shareholder rights against the Defendant Company, and sought confirmation that the Plaintiff did not have the Plaintiff’s inside director status as the Defendant Company. ② The Defendant Company sought implementation of the registration procedure by changing the inside director of the Defendant Company to Defendant C from the Plaintiff to the Defendant C, and implementation of the transfer registration procedure by changing the name of the shareholder from the Plaintiff to the Defendant C, and ③ the Defendant Company’s common share 30,000.