1. The defendant is the defendant with respect to each of the corresponding shares listed in the separate sheet No. 2 as to the plaintiffs.

1. The fact of recognition is that the defendant is a corporation established for the purpose of mine development business and aggregate extraction business, etc., and the plaintiffs were invested in the defendant and issued share certificates from the defendant. The plaintiffs subscribe to each of the defendant's shares as stated in the attached Form 2 "share Certificates by plaintiff" and hold shares issued by the defendant. The plaintiffs requested the defendant's representative director on April 18, 2016 to present the above share certificates to the defendant's representative director and to transfer a title to the plaintiffs' name in the defendant's name. However, the defendant's representative director refused such request. The defendant's representative director requested the defendant's representative director to re-written transfer to the defendant's representative director on October 14, 2016. The above content certification reached the defendant's name, but the defendant's representative director reached the defendant's meeting at that time, or the defendant's representative director did not comply with the transfer procedure under the defendant's name, and it can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the whole entries and arguments as well as the whole purport of arguments.

2. According to the facts of the above recognition, the plaintiffs are presumed to be a legitimate holder as a possessor of each share certificate listed in the attached Form 2's "the current status of share certificates for each plaintiff" (Article 336 (1) and (2) of the Commercial Act). Thus, the defendant is obligated to implement each transfer procedure to change the name of the shareholders listed in the defendant's list of shareholders as stated in attached Form 2

(The share certificates, among the share certificates held by Plaintiff C and Plaintiff D, indicated in E, are deemed to have been issued and delivered duplicately. The Defendant, barring any special circumstance, must implement transfer procedures for the shares corresponding to the above Plaintiffs within the total number of shares to be issued or through modification thereof). 3. As such, each of the claims by the Plaintiffs in this case is with merit.