1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

3...

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, except for the addition of the following '3. Additional Judgment' as to the assertion that the plaintiff emphasized or added in this court, and thus, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. As such, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

2. Parts to be dried;

A. Part 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance, from Part 12 to Part 13, “Foreign H, Defendant G, D, and E” were written by cutting them into “Foreign H, G, Defendant C, D, and E”.

B. Each “Defendant B” of the first instance judgment Nos. 16, 3, 18, 3, 19, 7, 12, 7, 17, and 10, 4, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 18, 3, and 4.

C. Part IV of the judgment of the court of first instance, "the instant company" was incorporated into "the instant company". D.

The fourth letter of the judgment of the court of first instance, in December 200, the fourth letter of the judgment of the court of first instance, " December 5, 200" shall be amended to " December 20."

E. Defendant G was put into “G” in Part VII of the judgment of the first instance.

F. The Court of First Instance 10 of the judgment of the court of first instance found the Q building’s “ Q building” in Q building.

G. The judgment of the court of first instance, No. 12 of the 12th of the 4th of the 12th of the 4th of the 1960s.

3. Additional determination

A. On the seventh day of pleading of the first instance court, Defendant C stated that “the shares held by himself shall be held in title trust by Defendant B, the father (see each of the arguments in the first instance court, e.g., Articles 7 and 8), and on the same basis, the presumption of the shareholder registry as of December 31, 2009 shall be deemed to have been destroyed. Therefore, the Defendants shall not have the presumption of the above shareholder registry.

Defendant C 12,000 shares for the number of shareholders on December 31, 2009, Defendant D 1,500 shares for Defendant D 1,500 shares for Defendant E 1,500 shares for the aggregate of 30,00 shares for 1,500 shares for Plaintiffs 1,500 shares for shareholders

B. The person registered as a shareholder in the shareholder registry is presumed to be the shareholder of the company, and the person bears the burden of proving the denial of the shareholder’s rights to reverse this.

Supreme Court Decision 201Da4548 delivered on March 1, 1985