1. It is confirmed that the shareholder's right to the shares listed in the separate sheet was against the Plaintiff.

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

Facts of recognition

The Plaintiff is the representative director of the instant company since the incorporation of the Plaintiff Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”), and the Defendant is the Plaintiff’s relative.

On June 2003, the Plaintiff decided to title trust to the Defendant with the name of 24,000 shareholders among the total number of shares issued by the instant company 60,000 shares (the face value 5,000 shares per share). Accordingly, the Defendant was registered as a shareholder of 24,00 shares (hereinafter “instant shares”) out of the total number of shares issued on the shareholder registry of the instant company 60,000 shares (the face value 5,00 shares per share).

[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, and following the determination of the court below as to the ground for a claim as to Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 3 and the purport of the entire argument, the plaintiff trusted the shares of this case to the defendant, and since the copy of the complaint of this case containing the plaintiff's declaration to terminate the title trust agreement with respect to the shares of this case was delivered on November 29, 2019 to the defendant, the title trust agreement with respect to the shares of this case between the plaintiff and the defendant was terminated, the shareholders' rights with respect

I would like to say.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da109708, Feb. 14, 2013). Therefore, the Plaintiff is entitled to the shareholders’ right of the instant shares, and the Defendant is dissatisfied with this, there is a benefit to confirm against the Defendant that the Plaintiff had the shareholders’ right of the instant shares.

In this regard, the defendant still holds shareholders' rights in the external relation to the company of this case for the uniform processing of legal relations surrounding the company of this case.

However, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit is not an external relationship, but an internal relationship between the title trustor and the title trustee, where the legal doctrine on real estate title trust applies to the legal relationship surrounding the title trust of shares, and thus, the Defendant has a shareholder’s right in the external relationship with the instant company.