1. The Defendant shall deliver to the Plaintiff the share certificates for the shares listed in the separate sheet, and shares listed in the separate sheet.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 28, 2010, the Defendant Company transferred the ownership of common shares of KRW 5,000 (hereinafter “instant shares”) issued by the Defendant Company to C, and issued a certificate of stock custody to C accordingly.

B. On February 1, 2011, C concluded a share transfer agreement with the Plaintiff Company to transfer the instant shares owned by it.

C. On November 2017, C concluded a contract between the Plaintiff Company and the Plaintiff Company to transfer the right to claim the issuance of the share certificates with respect to the instant shares held by the Defendant Company, and at that time notified the Defendant Company of the transfer of the right to claim the issuance of the share certificates.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 6, Eul evidence 1 and 3 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant company is obligated to deliver the share certificates of this case to the plaintiff company and to implement the procedure to write the shareholder's name on the shareholder registry of this case with respect to the shares of this case to the plaintiff company.

B. The Defendant Company’s assertion and determination 1) as to the allegation that the transfer of ownership of the instant shares was invalid. The transfer of ownership of the instant shares to the Defendant Company was subject to the condition that C would not engage in the same type of business after withdrawal from the Defendant Company. Since C violated the above conditions by establishing the Plaintiff Company for the same type of business as the Defendant Company on June 10, 201, it claimed that the transfer of ownership of the instant shares was null and void. On the other hand, there is no evidence to prove that the transfer of ownership as of July 28, 2010 on the instant shares of the Defendant Company was conditional act as above. Therefore, the above argument by the Defendant Company is without merit without further review.