1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning for this part of this Court’s reasoning is as stated in Paragraph 1 of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, and thus, this part of the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is cited.

2. The allegations and judgment of the parties

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion, C, and D established the Defendant Company, agreed on June 3, 2010 to hold 50% of the shares of the Defendant Company, 25% of the Plaintiff’s shares, and 25% of D. Accordingly, the Defendant Company’s list was prepared on June 3, 2010.

For the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiff concluded the instant one contract with respect to 50,00 shares of the Defendant Company, which were owned by the Plaintiff upon the request of the Defendant Company C as necessary for the management of the Defendant Company. The substance of the instant one contract is to make public disclosure as if C owned the Plaintiff’s shares, thereby making the Plaintiff nominal trust with C for the smooth operation of the Defendant Company. As long as the Plaintiff, a title truster, can terminate the instant one contract at any time, the Plaintiff was lawfully terminated by the delivery of a copy of the instant complaint, and thus, the Defendant is obliged to implement the transfer procedure with respect to 50,00 shares out of the shares listed in the separate sheet to the Plaintiff as the shareholder.

Even if the contract of this case is deemed as a share acquisition agreement, C refuses to pay 50,000 shares owned by the Plaintiff without paying the price, and the contract of this case was lawfully rescinded by delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case containing a declaration of intent of rescission of contract due to nonperformance by C, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to implement the transfer procedure with respect to 50,00 shares out of the shares listed in the separate sheet to the Plaintiff as a shareholder.

On the other hand, the judgment of the court of first instance judged that the plaintiff's expression of intent to terminate or cancel the contract of this case cannot be deemed to have reached C as the party to the contract of this case, but the lawsuit of this case is filed.