1. A shareholder of 5,00 shares (ordinary shares, 5,000 won per share) issued in the name of the defendant is the plaintiff.

1. The parties' assertion

A. At the time of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff paid a share price of KRW 100 million (i.e., KRW 5,000 x 20,000 x 10,000), and acquired the entire shares issued. Of which, 10,000 shares were title trust in the Defendant’s future.

After that, on February 22, 2012, the Plaintiff terminated the above title trust, and again held title trust with 5,000 shares for E and F, and on July 20, 2012, the Plaintiff acquired the above 10,00 shares by terminating the title trust between E and F, and thus, the Plaintiff is the Plaintiff as to 5,00 shares in the name of the Defendant.

B. The defendant's assertion, the defendant, G (the defendant's words), and the intervenor established D with 25% shares, respectively. However, the intervenor held the title trust of shares equivalent to the plaintiff's shares to the plaintiff, and G held the title trust of shares to the defendant.

After that, the defendant and G transferred 10,00 shares owned by them to the intervenors while withdrawing from the partnership relationship, and the intervenor held title trust with E and F respectively.

C. The Intervenor’s assertion, the Defendant, G (Defendant’s comments), and the Intervenor established D with 25% shares, respectively. However, the Intervenor held the title trust of shares equivalent to that of the Plaintiff, and G with the Defendant.

After that, the defendant and G transferred 10,00 shares owned by them to the intervenors while withdrawing from the partnership relationship, and the intervenor held title trust with E and F respectively.

Since the Intervenor terminated the title trust of E around July 30, 2012, and around September 13, 2012, the Intervenor acquired the above 10,000 shares, then the Intervenor is the Intervenor as to the 5,000 shares in the name of the Defendant.

2. Determination:

A. The defendant seems to have the validity of confessions between the defendant and the intervenor, recognizing the facts of the intervenor's above assertion, and confessions. However, since it is an independent party participation system for the purpose of confirming the unity of the merits between the parties and the intervenor, it does not take effect when the litigation between two parties among the three parties becomes disadvantageous to the other one.