1. Defendant D’s separate list from the Plaintiffs on January 5, 2017, based on the termination of a stock title trust.

Basic Facts

A. Defendant D is a single shareholder of Defendant Company who established Defendant E (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) on January 9, 2009.

B. In the process of establishment, the Defendant Company issued 10,00 shares of common shares. Defendant D, on January 9, 2009, issued 4,900 shares of the above shares to Plaintiff A, 4,600 shares to Plaintiff B, and 500 shares to Plaintiff C respectively.

C. The Plaintiffs asserted the termination of the above share trust agreement and requested Defendant D to accept the above shares, but up to now Defendant D did not comply with it.

[Based on the facts that there is no dispute, the entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9, and the overall purport of the pleadings, based on the above basic facts, the shareholders of 10,000 common shares of the defendant company are defendant D, and the plaintiffs are merely nominal shareholders. It is evident in the record that the copy of the complaint of this case stating the plaintiffs' declaration of termination of the stock trust agreement concluded between the plaintiffs and defendant D was served on January 5, 2017. Thus, the defendant D has a duty to take over each shares listed in the separate sheet from the plaintiffs upon termination of the stock trust agreement. The defendant company is a issuing company of 10,000 common shares as above, and the defendant company has a duty to perform the shareholder transfer procedure with respect to each shares listed in the separate sheet.

As to this, Defendant D asserts to the effect that part of the shares held in title trust through the capital increase of Defendant D had the intent to donate them to the Plaintiffs, and that it is difficult to manage the Defendant Company at present. However, the circumstance asserted by Defendant D alone is difficult to deem that the Plaintiffs cannot terminate the share trust agreement. The above assertion by Defendant D is without merit, as there is no other evidence.

In conclusion, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.