1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Around July 1994, the Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion invested KRW 30 million in Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”), and invested KRW 50 million in Defendant C and net D couple, and KRW 20 million in E.

Therefore, the actual share of the plaintiff is 30%, and the register of shareholders of the defendant company is registered as 1,000 shares which are merely 10% of the plaintiff's shares, and 20% of the part which falls short of the plaintiff's shares is registered in the name of defendant C, F, which is currently registered in the name of defendant C.

As to this, the network D’s confirmation document of Gap evidence No. 2, and the defendant C and the network D have prepared a confirmation document of Eul evidence No. 3 to the plaintiff, and acknowledged that the plaintiff’s shares were 3,000 shares. Thus, the defendant C’s 2,00 shares out of the defendant C’s shares were owned by the plaintiff, and the defendant company is obligated to implement transfer procedures for 2,000 shares out of the shares registered in the name of the defendant C in the register of shareholders.

2. According to the purport of the evidence No. 6 of the judgment as to the Defendant Company A and the entire pleadings, among the 10,000 shares (one share price of KRW 10,000) of the Defendant Company’s total shares on September 12, 2013, Defendant C may be recognized as holding 7,00 shares, G 2,00 shares, and the Plaintiff as holding 1,00 shares.

On the other hand, a person registered as a shareholder in the register of shareholders is presumed to be a shareholder of the company, and the person has the burden of proof to deny his/her shareholder rights.

(see Supreme Court Decisions 84Meu2082, Mar. 26, 1985; 2007Da51505, Mar. 11, 2010). Therefore, in order to assert that the name of a shareholder in the register of shareholders was trusted and that there was a separate shareholder as the name borrowed from that name, the party asserting such title trust relationship should prove the fact of borrowing the name in the name of the nominal owner.

(Supreme Court Decision 2010Da91916 Decided March 24, 201). According to the health care unit and evidence Nos. 3, 5, and 7 as to the instant case, each entry is examined.