1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. Upon the plaintiff's request from D, the defendant sent money in excess of KRW 400 million from August 2002 to August 400.

On October 10, 2002, the plaintiff was established and appointed as a representative director, and the defendant acquired 30% of the shares of the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd.

B. Around 2004, the Plaintiff acquired a stock company C (hereinafter “instant company”) and assumed office as a representative director.

C. From the time the Plaintiff commenced the operation of the instant company, the Defendant registered 1,500 shares of 15,000 shares out of the total shares of the instant company (hereinafter “instant shares”) as shareholders on the list of shareholders as shown in the separate sheet.

【Ground of recognition】In the absence of dispute, Gap 1, 2, Eul 4-1, 2

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff issued a title trust to the Defendant with the instant shares, and the title trust agreement was terminated upon the delivery of a duplicate of the instant complaint.

Even if it is assumed that the instant shares were offered to the Defendant as a security, the underlying claim was extinguished by the completion of prescription.

Nevertheless, the defendant asserts that there is legal dispute over the above shares, and thus, the plaintiff is a shareholder of the shares of this case.

B. The Defendant lent the business funds to Defendant, the Plaintiff’s head, “D,” and is a legitimate shareholder who held the shares of this case as a security. The Defendant’s loan claims against D with respect to the Defendant were suspended by the extinctive prescription period or waived extinctive prescription benefits, and the Plaintiff’s assertion is

3. Determination on whether title trust is held

A. A person registered as a shareholder in the register of shareholders is presumed to be a shareholder of the company, and in order to reverse this, the person has the burden of proof to deny his/her shareholder rights.

Supreme Court Decision 84Meu2082 Decided March 26, 1985; Supreme Court Decision 2007Da51505 Decided March 11, 2010