1. The defendant's shareholder rights of 5,000 shares out of 10,000 shares of D common shares are against the plaintiff A, and the remaining 5,00 shares are against the plaintiff A.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 1, 2010, the Plaintiffs entered into a contract with the Defendant to purchase KRW 50 million each of the D Ordinary Stocks Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant shares”) owned by each of the Defendant (hereinafter “instant shares”) at KRW 10,000,000, respectively. The Plaintiffs agreed to title trust the Defendant with each of the instant shares, without transferring the names of the holders.

(hereinafter “instant title trust agreement”). B.

On September 19, 2017, a duplicate of the instant complaint stating the Plaintiffs’ intent to terminate the instant title trust agreement reaches the Defendant.

[Grounds for recognition] The written evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 5 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. If a person who has entrusted a shareholder’s name with respect to the shares before the issuance of share certificates terminates a title trust agreement with the trustee, the shareholder’s right to the shares is returned to the title truster solely by the declaration of termination. In such a case, if a shareholder’s name listed in the register of shareholders contests substantial shareholder’s rights, the actual shareholder is entitled to seek confirmation of shareholder’s rights against the shareholder’s name

(See Supreme Court Decision 2011Da109708 Decided February 14, 2013, etc.). Since the instant title trust agreement was lawfully terminated by the Plaintiffs’ declaration of intent to terminate the instant title trust agreement, the shareholders’ rights to each of the instant shares 5,000 shares were returned to the truster, who is a title truster.

Therefore, among the 10,000 shares of this case, the shareholders' rights of 5,000 shares are against A, and the remaining 5,000 shares are against B.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that the plaintiffs' rights cannot be recognized unless they compensate for the damages because the defendant remains as the representative director of D Co., Ltd. while the plaintiffs did not transfer the names of the owners of the shares in this case.