1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts are companies established on November 18, 1994 for the main purpose of manufacturing and selling the products, such as the regular and back-to-door percentage for business use, and the Plaintiff is a shareholder who holds 1,239,941 shares (the share ratio 27.32%; hereinafter “instant shares”) out of the Defendant’s total outstanding shares of 4,538,370 shares (the share value 5,000 won per share) and the Defendant’s shareholder registry on December 31, 2015 also stated the number of shares owned by the Plaintiff as above.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant issued the share certificates pursuant to Article 355 (1) of the Commercial Act, but delays the issuance of the share certificates, claims that the shares of this case were held in title trust, and changes the name of the shareholder of this case to D, which is the plaintiff's reference. The plaintiff seeks against the defendant for the issuance and issuance of the share certificates of this case and for the implementation of transfer procedures for the shares of this case.

B. According to the statements in the evidence Nos. 13 through 21, 23, 24, and 25 (including each number) of the judgment, the Defendant issued a share certificate of the instant shares and requested the Plaintiff himself/herself and his/her legal representative to determine the place and date of receipt thereof over several times from October 19, 2016, and urged the Plaintiff to receive the said share certificate; ② the Plaintiff and his/her legal representative did not cooperate in receiving the said share certificate even upon receipt of the above notice of receipt; ③ the Defendant applied for a securities deposit with the Seoul Central District Court 2017 Evidence6 on January 16, 2017, but the deposit officer on the same day applied for the deposit, but the deposit officer did not attach a document proving his/her domicile to the Plaintiff; ④ the Defendant raised an objection to the said decision; ④ the deposit officer revoked the non-acceptance decision with the Seoul Central District Court 2017 non-acceptance6 on July 7, 2017.