1. The Defendants confirm that each of the Defendant’s shares listed in the separate sheet was the Plaintiff.

2...

1. The Plaintiff filed a claim against Defendant B under title trust with respect to 7,00 shares in D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”).

The plaintiff who is a substantial shareholder is notified of the cancellation of the title trust as the service of the complaint in this case.

Therefore, there is a benefit of confirmation because the shareholders' right of the above shares is against the plaintiff, and the defendant B is disputing this issue.

[Judgment by Confession: Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act]

2. Claim against Defendant C

A. Defendant C asserts that the Plaintiff’s filing of the instant confirmation lawsuit without filing a performance lawsuit seeking procedures such as transfer of holders, etc. does not have interest in confirmation.

However, in a case where a nominal shareholder on the form recorded in the register of shareholders contests a substantial shareholder’s right, the actual shareholder has a benefit to seek confirmation of a shareholder’s right against the nominal shareholder on the register of shareholders (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da38510, Jun. 12, 1998). Therefore, Defendant C’s main defense of safety is without merit.

B. Determination on the merits 1) Each statement of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 14 (including paper numbers), witness Eul's testimony, and the following circumstances, which could be known by the purport of the entire pleading, are recorded in the register of shareholders as to the above shares held by defendant C. A. The shares were transferred under the name of Eul at the time of initial D establishment, and the shares were transferred to defendant C at around 2003 again. F was transferred under title trust upon the plaintiff's request at the time of establishment of D. F was stated that the above shares were transferred to Eul at the time of establishment of D. F was transferred under title trust. At the time of establishment of D, the plaintiff was deemed to have invested in the total amount at the time of establishment of D. The shareholders at the time of establishment of D were F (3,00 shares), H (2,50 shares), I (2,500 shares), J (2,500 shares), and the shares held by the plaintiff under title trust.