1. The defendant shall transfer to the plaintiff the name of the shareholder with respect to the shares stated in the attached sheet.

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Defendant completed the registration of incorporation on July 29, 2005 for the purpose of reinforced concrete construction business, and the total number of issued shares is 100,000 shares (10,000 shares per share) and share certificates are not issued. 2) At the time of September 15, 2011, as of September 15, 201, the Defendant held 45,000 shares among the Defendant’s issued shares, E is 10,00 shares, E is 21,00 shares, F is 15,00 shares, G is 5,00 shares, and H owns 4,00 shares, respectively.

3) On May 30, 2012, the Plaintiff acquired 21,00 shares of E, 15,00 shares of F, and 4,00 shares of H from each of the above owners on May 30, 2012. On the same day, E, F, and H sent to the Defendant a written notice that they transferred each of the above shares to the Plaintiff by content-certified mail, and the said notice reached the Defendant on the following day. [In the absence of dispute over the grounds for recognition, evidence Nos. 1, 1-2, 2-1, 2, 3-1, 2, 3-1, 3-2, 4-1, 2, 4-2, and 5-2, and the purport of the entire pleadings, as well as the purport of the whole pleadings.

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff legally acquired shares listed in the attached Form E, F, and H (hereinafter “instant shares”) from E, F, and H, and the Defendant is obligated to implement the transfer procedure for the instant shares to the Plaintiff.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The plaintiff alleged by the defendant, along with his pro-friendly I, attempted to acquire apartment units newly built by the defendant, illegally occupied the site of the above apartment units and was subject to a disposition of suspension of indictment from the prosecutor's office. On April 10, 2013, the defendant's minutes of the general meeting of shareholders were reviewed, and all of the defendant's representative director and internal directors were dismissed, and as if the defendant and I entered into an agreement with the court for the reduction of the I punishment of 50 million won for occupational breach of trust by causing damage to the defendant. On April 30, 2013, the plaintiff had the defendant issue a promissory note of 4.5 billion won to the J and caused substantial damage to the defendant.