1. Defendant B confirms that the shareholder rights of the shares listed in the separate sheet were against the Plaintiff.

2. Defendant.

Facts of recognition

A. Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) is a company whose restaurant operation business purpose is the restaurant operation business, and Defendant B is registered as a shareholder of the shares listed in the separate sheet in the register of shareholders of the Defendant Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant shares”).

B. Around January 2008, the Plaintiff acquired the instant shares and thereafter held the title trust (hereinafter “instant title trust”) against Defendant B.

C. After that, the Plaintiff expressed his intent to terminate the title trust of this case against Defendant B by serving a duplicate of the instant complaint.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. According to the facts of the above recognition as to the claim against Defendant B, the Plaintiff declared to Defendant B that the title trust of this case would be terminated, and on the other hand, the fact that the duplicate of the complaint of this case containing such declaration of intent reaches Defendant B on January 13, 2020 is apparent in the record. Thus, the title trust of this case was terminated at that time, and the shareholder’s right to the shares of this case was returned to the Plaintiff.

As the defendant B is dissatisfied with this, the plaintiff has a benefit to seek confirmation.

B. As seen earlier, the determination of the claim against the Defendant Company on the instant shares was returned to the Plaintiff. As such, the Defendant Company is obligated to implement the transfer procedure to change the name of the shareholder on the shareholder registry of the instant shares to the Plaintiff.

(1) The Defendants asserted to the effect that they cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim based on Supreme Court Decision 2015Da248342 Decided March 23, 2017, etc. However, the above Supreme Court’s decision purport that the company should confirm the company’s exercise of shareholder rights by entry in the register of shareholders, and it cannot be applied to this case, which differs from this, and thus, the Defendants’ assertion is without merit).