1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Plaintiff and Defendant B’s shares issued by Defendant C, with face value 5.

1. The facts that the plaintiff and the defendant Eul were married and continued to file a divorce lawsuit (the Seoul Family Court of the first instance 2015dhap34956, 31759, Seoul High Court 2018Reuu20873, 2080, and 2080), and the defendant C Co., Ltd (hereinafter "the defendant Co., Ltd") issued 10,000 shares of the face value of 5,000 shares at the time of establishment in around 2008. Among them, 2,00 shares of the defendant Co., Ltd. (the 2,00 shares issued in the name of the plaintiff at the time of issuance) were registered in the name of the plaintiff (the 2,00 shares issued by the defendant Co., Ltd.), and as of the present date, all shares, including the shares in the shareholder registry of the defendant Co., Ltd., Ltd., were registered in the name of the defendant Co., Ltd.,

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. (1) The Plaintiff is a legitimate shareholder who paid the share price of KRW 10 million at the time of incorporation of the Defendant Company.

Defendant B abused himself as the representative director of the Defendant Company, and arbitrarily changed the name on the shareholder registry of the instant shares to Defendant B.

Therefore, the instant shares against Defendant B are confirmed to be owned by the Plaintiff, and the Defendant Company seeks implementation of the transfer procedure for the said shares to the Plaintiff.

(2) At the time of the incorporation of the Defendant Company, the instant shares in the name of the Plaintiff were held in title by Defendant B to avoid oligopolistic shareholders.

On March 9, 2016, Defendant B terminated the title trust and changed the shareholder name to Defendant B.

These procedures are justified by the substantial shareholder to recover the true title of shares.

B. (1) Determination is based on the premise that a person registered as a shareholder in the register of shareholders is presumed to be the shareholder of the company, and that there is a burden of proof to deny that shareholder's rights are to be reversed, so that the name of the shareholder in the register of shareholders was trusted, and that there is a separate shareholder in substance as the name borrowed from that person, the party asserting such title trust relationship.