1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The right of shareholders of the shares listed in the separate sheet between the Plaintiff and Defendant D.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning the basic facts and the main safety defense is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment on the merits

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff is an owner of shares listed in the separate sheet, based on the following circumstances. ① The Plaintiff, a non-corporate company, was established and operated by the Defendant Company to deny the private property of its members and enjoy community life, but to establish an economic foundation for its continuation. ② The Defendant Company’s shares are not owned by the nominal owners on the list of shareholders, but owned by the Plaintiff’s members as the Plaintiff’s property, in substance, and owned by the Plaintiff’s nominal ownership to the Plaintiff’s nominal owners. ② As to the Defendants’ assertion, the Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff owned the shares of the Defendant Company. (2) As to the Defendants’ assertion, Defendant D operated the business registration with the name of lending Y andO to some of the Plaintiff’s title holders after the commencement of a small-scale salary grade business with the Plaintiff’s business, and established the Defendant Company by borrowing capital again, and Defendant D did not claim that the shares were owned by the Plaintiff and the shares of the Defendant Company in accordance with the percentage stated in the register of shareholders.

B. 1) Determination of whether a title trust of Defendant Company’s shares was held or not is held or not is held or not. A person registered as a shareholder in the register of shareholders is presumed to be a shareholder of that company, and in order to reverse this, the person bears the burden of proving that he/she denies his/her shareholder’s rights. Therefore, in order to assert that the name of the shareholder in the register of shareholders was trusted and that of the name borrowed, a person who is the

Supreme Court Decision 9.9.9.