1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. 15,300 shares out of 30,00 shares generated by C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”) under the premise that they are the premise, and 14,700 shares in the remaining Schedule (hereinafter “instant shares”) under the Plaintiff’s name and the fact that they are under the name of the Defendant is under the name of the parties does not conflict between the parties.

2. The parties' assertion

A. Considering the fact that the Plaintiff’s assertion did not bear the Defendant’s obligation to contribute to the instant shares, that the Defendant did not exercise the Defendant’s right to claim dividends against the instant company, and that it was useful to use the Company’s funds while carrying out unsound management in managing the instant company, the Plaintiff sufficiently recognized that the instant shares were trusted in trust to the Defendant, and even though the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that it would terminate the title trust agreement with respect to the instant shares, the Defendant is disputing the ownership relationship of the instant shares, and thus, the Plaintiff sought confirmation on whether the instant shares were owned by the Plaintiff

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the shares of this case were donated to the Defendant, and that there was no agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on title trust regarding the shares of this case, and thus, the Plaintiff’s

3. A person registered as a shareholder in the register of shareholders to determine the existence of a title trust agreement with respect to the instant shares is presumed to be a shareholder of the relevant company, and in order to reverse this, the person bears the burden of proving that he/she denies his/her shareholder's rights (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 84Meu2082, Mar. 26, 1985). In order to assert that the name of a shareholder in the register of shareholders was trusted and that there was a separate shareholder in substance as the name borrower, the person claiming such title trust relationship must prove the fact of borrowing

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da27755, Sept. 6, 2007). Comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions and the whole purport of pleadings and evidence Nos. 4 and 10 (including the serial number), the Plaintiff’s assertion and the entire purport of pleadings.