1. All of the plaintiff's claims that the court changed in exchange are dismissed.

2. Change of an exchange;

1. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion and the Defendant B agreed to take over the instant company E (hereinafter “instant company”) and distribute profits generated by joint management as a partnership. The Plaintiff was in charge of the said company’s external business, and the Defendant B was in charge of the said company’s internal business.

Therefore, the Plaintiff is a joint manager of Defendant B and the instant company’s share holder, and is a beneficial shareholder of 60,000 shares in the separate sheet corresponding to 50% of the shares issued by the said company.

However, the Plaintiff trusted the name of the shareholder with respect to the above shares in title trust, and the Defendant re-title trust part of the shares held in title trust with Defendant C and D, and the Plaintiff’s shares are entered in the register of shareholders in the name of the

However, the Defendants asserted the Plaintiff’s status as the co-manager of the instant company and the beneficial owner of 50%, and thus, seek confirmation of the Defendants’ shareholder rights against the said 60,000 shares.

2. Determination

A. A person who is registered as a shareholder in the shareholder registry of the Defendants against the Defendants is presumed to be a shareholder of the said company, and the said person bears the burden of proving that he/she denies his/her shareholder rights. Thus, in order to reverse this, the name of the shareholder registry was trusted, and in order to have a separate shareholder as the name borrowed, the party who asserts such title trust relationship should prove it.

(Supreme Court Decision 2014Da218511 Decided December 11, 2014). According to the evidence No. 35, Defendant B out of the shares of the instant company, the Defendants are presumed to be a shareholder, barring any special circumstance, since it is acknowledged that Defendant B entered the shares of the instant company as 40,000 shares, Defendant C’s 36,00 shares, and Defendant D as 36,00 shares.

B. Whether the Plaintiff, as a co-manager of the instant company, is a beneficial shareholder of 50% of the total shares of the instant company, the partnership agreement under the Civil Act is mutually invested by two or more persons.