2. The plaintiff's remaining part against defendant C.

A. The Plaintiff asserts that Defendant B, as of January 3, 201, under title trust with the Plaintiff the shares stated in the purport of the claim (hereinafter “instant shares”) issued by Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant C”), and that even though the Plaintiff agreed to change the name of the instant shares to Defendant B on January 3, 2011, Defendant C’s corporate tax, etc. was imposed on the Plaintiff, who is a nominal shareholder, due to the wind of neglecting to report the change of ownership and the change of shares. Thus, the Plaintiff asserts that the shareholder of the instant shares as of January 3, 201 is the Defendant B.

As to this, the Defendants did not dispute the Plaintiff’s assertion.

B. In a lawsuit seeking confirmation, there must be a benefit of confirmation as a requirement for the protection of rights. The benefit of confirmation is acknowledged in cases where there is a dispute between the parties as to the legal relationship subject to confirmation, and the Plaintiff’s right or legal status is not unstable and dangerous (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2014Da218511, Dec. 11, 2014; 2009Da93299, Feb. 25, 2010). In light of such legal principles, health class and benefit of confirmation in this case is premised on the premise that there is a dispute between the parties as to the legal relationship subject to confirmation and the Defendants. Furthermore, even if the Plaintiff’s shareholder against the Defendants was verified against the Defendant, it cannot be deemed that there is a benefit to seek confirmation as the Plaintiff’s legal status or right, which has occurred between the Republic of Korea and a third party.