1. As to the shares listed in paragraph 1 of the attached list, Defendant C shall be the shares listed in paragraph 2 of the attached list.

1. Following the fact of recognition is true that there is no dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendants.

Defendant D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) is a company established on November 24, 200 and established on November 24, 200, 10,000 won per share (ordinary share), total number of issued and outstanding shares 10,000 shares, and 100,000 capital.

B. The Plaintiff is the largest shareholder and the representative director who hold 3,90 shares on the list of shareholders of the Defendant Company. Defendant B and C are those who are listed respectively on the list of shareholders of the Defendant Company, as shown in the attached Table.

C. However, each of the above shares in Defendant B and C was each nominal trust with the said Defendants, and a duplicate of the instant complaint containing the Plaintiff’s declaration of termination of each of the above nominal trust relationship was delivered to the said Defendants on June 8, 2019.

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of claim, each of the shares listed in the separate sheet in Defendant B and C’s name are the shares held in title trust from the original Plaintiff to the said Defendants, so long as the above title trust relationship is terminated, each of the above shareholders’ rights is deemed to exist in the Plaintiff. The Defendants are disputing this, and there is a benefit of confirmation. Meanwhile, upon the termination of each of the above title trust agreements, the Defendant Company is obligated to implement the procedure for changing the name of each of the above shares to the Plaintiff

Therefore, the Defendants asserted that, in order to uniformly process legal relations surrounding a corporation, Defendant B and C still hold shareholders' rights to the said shares. However, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit of this case seeking confirmation of ownership based on the internal relationship between the title trustor and the title trustee rather than the external relationship, and claiming transfer of ownership to the stock holder. Thus, it is irrelevant to the contents claimed by the Defendants.

Therefore, the above assertion by the Defendants is valid.