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

During the period from around 2006 to 2015, the Plaintiff held each of the instant shares in title trust with the Defendants as indicated in the separate sheet. Around August 2016, the Plaintiff expressed to the Defendants the intent to terminate the title trust.

Since the Defendants denied a title trust agreement, they seek confirmation that the shareholders' rights of the instant shares are the Plaintiff, as stated in the purport of the claim.

On the other hand, Defendant E transferred the entire shares of G Co., Ltd. which received title trust to another person, and Defendant F transferred 287,246 shares out of the shares of the company that received title trust to another person.

Since the existence of the benefit of confirmation in the lawsuit for confirmation of the legitimacy of the lawsuit in this case is an ex officio matter, the court should make ex officio determination regardless of the parties’ assertion (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da12905, Jul. 12, 191). In the lawsuit for confirmation, the benefit of confirmation must be the benefit of confirmation as a requirement for the protection of rights. The benefit of confirmation is in dispute between the parties as to the legal relationship subject thereto, and thereby, if there is apprehension and risk of the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status, it is recognized that the benefit of confirmation is the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate such apprehension and risk (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da93299, Feb. 25, 2010). The Defendants recognized all the facts that “the Plaintiff trusted the shares in this case to the Defendants,” and accordingly, H and G corporation as the Plaintiff’s shareholder in the name of the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the instant lawsuit is unlawful because there is no benefit in confirmation.

If the title trust relationship with the instant shares is not finalized through a judgment, capital gains tax shall be imposed on the Defendants.