1. Shares in the name of the defendant among registered ordinary shares in the face value of KRW 5,000 issued by C, which are 3,000.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 8, 2011, the Plaintiff established a stock company C, and held a title trust to the Defendant with 3,000 shares registered ordinary shares of the said company (hereinafter “instant shares”).

B. The Plaintiff expressed to the Defendant that the above title trust agreement on the instant shares was terminated by the service of the duplicate of the complaint of this case.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, purport of whole pleadings]

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The summary of the parties’ assertion asserts that the title trust agreement on the instant shares was terminated, and that the said shares were entitled to the said shares, and that the shareholder of the instant shares was the Plaintiff.

In regard to this, the defendant recognized the fact that the shares of this case were held in title trust, but recognized the fact that the shareholder's rights are externally the defendant, so that the plaintiff's claim cannot be accepted

B. 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, where the nominal shareholder listed in the shareholder’s register contests substantial shareholder’s rights, the substantial shareholder may seek confirmation of shareholder’s rights against the nominal shareholder

(see Supreme Court Decision 2011Da109708, Feb. 14, 2013). The Health Center for the instant case, and the fact that the Plaintiff had title trust with the Defendant, but had terminated the title trust agreement, is as seen earlier. As such, the shareholders’ right to the instant shares was returned to the Plaintiff.

As long as the defendant is disputing the claim of this case, the plaintiff has a benefit to seek confirmation.

3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.