1. It is confirmed that the shareholders of each of the shares listed in the separate sheet between the Plaintiff, Defendant B, C, D, and E are the Plaintiff.

2...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Defendant F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant F”) is a company whose purpose is food materials wholesale and retail business, etc., and the Plaintiff is its representative director at the time of incorporation.

B. At the time of incorporation of the Defendant Company, the Plaintiff included Defendant B, C, D, and E, who was an employee of the Defendant Company, in the promoters for the avoidance of oligopolistic shareholders, and each of 20,000 common shares (in the case of Defendant B and C) of the Defendant Company (in the case of Defendant B and E), and 30,000 shares (in the case of Defendant D and E), respectively, after the Plaintiff invested the capital corresponding to the said Defendants’ investment.

C. Since then, the Plaintiff requested Defendant B, C, D, and E to return the shares of the Defendant Company held by the said Defendants, but the said Defendants did not return the shares to the Plaintiff.

Since the incorporation of the Defendant Company, the Defendant Company has not issued the share certificates until now.

[Ground of recognition] Defendant B, Defendant Company: Articles 208(3)2 and 150(3) of the Civil Procedure Act (determination of confession due to the absence of Defendant), Defendant C, D, E: The fact that there is no dispute, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. If a person who entrusted the name of the shareholder in the name of the judgment terminates the title trust contract with the trustee, the shareholder's right is returned to the title truster immediately (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Da16386, Oct. 27, 1992). According to the above facts of recognition, the plaintiff concluded a title trust contract with the defendant B, C, D, and E for each of 20,000 common shares (in the case of defendant B and C) of the defendant company (in the case of the defendant Eul), and 30,000 shares (in the case of the defendant D and E), and then terminated it. Accordingly, the shareholder's right to the shares of the defendant company in the name of the above defendants is against the plaintiff.

Therefore, as long as the above Defendants do not return this to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff has a benefit to seek confirmation.

Furthermore, the shares of the defendant company shall be issued up to now.