1. The part concerning the claim for confirmation of stock ownership among the lawsuit in this case shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3...

1. We examine ex officio the claim for confirmation of ownership.

A lawsuit for confirmation is recognized in cases where it is the most effective means to obtain a judgment of confirmation in order to eliminate the risk of uncertainty when the legal status of the plaintiff is dangerous.

Therefore, even though a lawsuit seeking implementation may be filed, it is not a final solution of the dispute, and therefore there is no benefit of confirmation.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da60239 Decided March 9, 2006, etc.). In this case, the Plaintiff asserted against the Defendant that the Plaintiff is an owner of the shares listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant shares”) and sought implementation of the transfer procedure on the said shares. As such, there is no benefit to seek confirmation of ownership of the instant shares against the Defendant separately.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit on claim for confirmation of ownership against the Defendant is unlawful.

2. Part on request for change of entry;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion C acquired the entire shares of the Defendant Company from D on May 15, 2013, under title trust with E, F, etc., and thereafter, the Plaintiff acquired the shares of the Defendant Company from C on or around July 15, 2013, and accordingly, the Defendant is obligated to implement the transfer procedure for the Plaintiff, who is the owner of the instant shares, to make the Plaintiff a shareholder in the register of shareholders.

B. A person registered as a shareholder in the registry of shareholders is presumed to be a shareholder of the company in question and, in order to reverse this, there is a burden of proof on the part of denying the shareholder's rights. Thus, in order to establish a trust with the name of the shareholder in the registry of shareholders and to establish a separate shareholder as the name borrowed from that person, the person must prove that the title trust relation is asserted.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Da27755 Decided September 6, 2007). In full view of the entries in the evidence No. 8-1 and No. 1 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Defendant at the time of May 15, 2013.