1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for the court of first instance’s determination as to the plaintiff’s conjunctive assertion at the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's conjunctive assertion

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion and the Defendant did not have any express agreement on share distribution at the time of the establishment of C, so it is reasonable to allocate C’s shares to the investment ratio of the company’s share distribution.

Of the shares of this case, 1,000 shares owned by the Defendant exceeding 30%, which are the investment ratio of the Defendant, are distributed to the Plaintiff with at least two times more than the Defendant, and is merely title trust in the name of the Defendant.

The plaintiff terminated the above title trust agreement with the service of the duplicate of the complaint of this case. Thus, the above shares of 1,000 shares revert to the plaintiff.

B. As seen earlier, a person registered as a shareholder in the shareholder registry is presumed to be a shareholder of the company, and in order to reverse this, the person has the burden of proving that he/she denies his/her shareholder's rights.

According to the above facts, it can be acknowledged that the defendant was registered in the register of shareholders as a shareholder for the shares of this case at the time of establishment C. Thus, regardless of the entry in the register of shareholders at the time of establishment C, we examine whether the plaintiff was registered in the title trust of 1,00 shares out of the shares of this case to

It is also recognized by the plaintiff that there was no agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant that there was no agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant that the investment ratio of the company's share distribution.

Unless such an agreement exists, C’s shares are deemed to have been distributed according to the investment ratio of investment price at the time of the establishment of a company, unlike the list of shareholders.

Therefore, the plaintiff and the defendant.