1. It is confirmed that the Plaintiff is a shareholder of shares listed in the separate sheet between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

2. The defendant.

According to the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including virtual number), the plaintiff's shares listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter "the shares of this case") among the 150,000 shares issued in the register of shareholders as of May 2, 2013 are listed as shareholders. At present, the defendant's shares in this case are listed as shareholders, and the facts that C and C, the representative director of the defendant's shareholder registry, are listed as shareholders.

In the instant case claiming that the Plaintiff did not transfer the shares of this case to another person, the Defendant’s representative director, and C did not submit direct evidence on the title trust of shares or the restoration of the name thereof, in full view of the following: (a) in the instant case claiming that the Dongs of C and C, who are the Defendant’s representative director, entrusted the shares of this case to the Plaintiff, received the title transfer from the Plaintiff; and (b) the Plaintiff prepared necessary documents for the transfer of the name; (c) the Plaintiff did not submit any direct evidence on the title trust of shares or the restoration of the name thereof (the Defendant did not comply with this court’s order for the preparation of the name

The plaintiff still has a position as a shareholder for the shares of this case, and as long as the defendant contests the existence of shareholder's rights, he has a benefit to seek confirmation

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da109708, Feb. 14, 2013). In addition, the Defendant is obligated to implement the transfer procedure to change the shareholder name to the Plaintiff regarding the instant shares.

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and accepted.