1. As to the shares listed in paragraph 1 of the attached list, Defendant C shall be the shares listed in paragraph 2 of the attached list.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. At the time of the establishment of Defendant D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) on March 6, 1981, the Plaintiff trusted the title of the shares 2,600 shares issued by the Defendant Co., Ltd., and the shares 1,000 shares (hereinafter “instant shares”) to Defendant C.

B. The Plaintiff terminated the above title trust agreement to Defendant B and C at the time of the instant lawsuit.

C. The Plaintiff requested the Defendant Company to change the name of the shareholder on the shareholder registry to the Plaintiff, and requested the Defendant B and C to cooperate in the transfer procedure, but all the Defendants rejected the request.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy

2. If a person who has entrusted a shareholder’s name with respect to the shares before the issuance of share certificates terminates a title trust agreement with the trustee, the shareholder’s right to the shares is returned to the title truster solely by the declaration of termination. In such a case, if a shareholder’s name recorded in the register of shareholders contests substantial shareholder’s rights, a substantial shareholder is entitled to seek confirmation of shareholder’s rights against the

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da109708, Feb. 14, 2013). With respect to the instant case, the health care team and the fact that the Plaintiff expressed to Defendant B and C the intent to terminate the title trust agreement at the time of the instant lawsuit is as seen earlier. As such, the shareholder’s right to the instant shares was returned to the Plaintiff.

However, as long as the Defendants are disputing the transfer procedure of the instant shares, the Plaintiff has a benefit to seek confirmation of the said shares’ rights against the said Defendants, and the Defendant Company is obligated to implement the transfer procedure to change the name of the shareholders on the shareholder registry to the Plaintiff.

3. The plaintiff's claim of this case against the defendants is with merit.