1. The Defendants confirm that the Plaintiff is a shareholder of the shares listed in the separate sheet.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.

1. On January 28, 2002, the title truster’s shares subject to title trust agreement No. 1, 2002, Defendant C750, May 29, 2003, Plaintiff C4,500, June 30, 2004, Plaintiffs B8,050, and Defendant E5,950, December 27, 2005, on December 27, 2005, respectively.

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendants entered into a stock title trust agreement (hereinafter “instant title trust agreement”) with respect to each of the shares listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant shares”) out of the issued shares of the Plaintiff’s Loading Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Onboard Development”) as follows:

B. As of September 30, 2014, the Plaintiff entered 15,570 shares out of the shares of the tower development on the register of shareholders as being held by Defendant C, 8,050 shares, Defendant B, and 5,950 shares, respectively, and registered on the register of shareholders.

C. A duplicate of the instant complaint containing the Plaintiff’s intent to terminate the instant title trust agreement was served on the Defendants.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 9 (including additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff was a substantial shareholder of the shares of this case and held in title with the Defendants, and the above title trust agreement was lawfully terminated by delivering a copy of the complaint of this case.

Therefore, the shares in the name of the Defendants are owned by the Plaintiff, and as long as Defendant C and E are dissatisfied with this, the Plaintiff has a benefit to seek confirmation.

3. Determination as to Defendant C and E’s assertion

A. Defendant C and E agreed to receive compensation from the Plaintiff for the instant title trust agreement, and the right to claim reimbursement of expenses under Article 739 of the Civil Act is recognized, and thus, they cannot comply with the Plaintiff’s claim. However, the Plaintiff’s claim for confirmation of ownership cannot be avoided due to the foregoing reasons. Therefore, the above Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

B. Although Defendant D and E asserted that the prescriptive acquisition of the instant shares has been completed, they are recorded as shareholders on the register of shareholders.