1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4 (including paper numbers), the witness C’s partial testimony, the examination results of some parties to the defendant representative director D, and the overall purport of the pleadings.

E’s president, minister of F, etc., from 200 to 200, the network H, who was in a position of a member of the National Assembly belonging to the G Party, was in internal relations with the Plaintiff, and C, on 8, 200

3. There was only one son between H and H.

B. On November 2001, D entered into a contract to trade 50,000,000 won of the shares listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as “the sale of shares in this case”) with a face value of 50,000,000 won, and D entered into a sales contract with a purchaser as the Plaintiff. D entered into a written confirmation of stock ownership under the name of the Defendant Company to verify that the Plaintiff owns 100,000 shares of the Defendant Company and issued it to H.

(A) The Defendant Company’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s personal information was written in the official column of the above documents without authority was a blank for the assignee column of the above sales contract and the shareholder column of the certificate of stock ownership. However, the Defendant Company’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s personal information was written in the official column of the above documents is difficult to believe, in light of the result of appraiser I’s appraisal, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and thus, the Defendant Company’s assertion

The net H donated the shares acquired through the instant trade to C and his children produced by C and C, and granted C a sales contract and a certificate of stock ownership under the preceding paragraph.

The network H died on January 16, 2009.

2. The defendant company, which judged the principal safety defense of the defendant company, has asserted that the lawsuit of this case against the defendant company, which is only the nominal lender in the sale of the shares of this case, should be dismissed in an unlawful manner.