1. The plaintiff's claim that was changed in exchange in this court is dismissed.

2. The Plaintiff’s total costs of litigation.

1. On May 4, 1995, there is no dispute between the parties that the Plaintiff did not set the period for common shares of this case and entrusted the Defendant with the determination of the cause of the claim.

On the other hand, when there is no agreement on the period of deposit, each party may terminate the contract at any time (Article 699 of the Civil Act). The fact that the copy of the complaint of this case seeking the return of KRW 1 billion of the common share price of this case based on the right to claim the return of the common share of this case reaches the Defendant on October 10, 2018 is apparent in the record.

According to this, the deposit contract entered into between the Plaintiff and the Defendant with respect to the instant common shares (hereinafter “instant deposit contract”) was terminated by the delivery of a copy of the complaint in this case.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to return the instant common shares to the Plaintiff, barring special circumstances.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff, around 1995, left the Defendant with the instant ordinary share and the instant preferential share, and accordingly, sought the return of the instant preferential share against the Defendant.

However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff was in charge of the instant priority owner, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

The plaintiff's assertion on this part is not accepted.

2. The Defendant asserts that the right to claim the return of the instant common shares following the termination of the Plaintiff’s contract for the deposit of this case was extinguished by the completion of the statute of limitations.

The Defendant’s statement at the first day of pleading of the first instance trial ( January 24, 2019), stating, “It is unreasonable to take into account the issue after 25 years of the incident that occurred between 1994 and 195,” which was made by the Plaintiff at the first day of pleading of the first instance trial, as an assertion for the extinction of prescription.”

A claim with no time limit is possible for the obligee to claim performance at all times from the time when the claim occurred (the Plaintiff may freely terminate the instant deposit contract against the Defendant and seek the return of the instant commonism).