Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance.

2. The reasoning of this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is as follows: (a) the reasoning of this part is that the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is the same as that of the corresponding part of the 4th and 2nd to 10th of the grounds of the judgment of the first instance.

3. In a lawsuit seeking confirmation as to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit, there should be a benefit of confirmation as a requirement for the protection of rights. The benefit of confirmation is disputed between the parties as to the legal relationship subject to the lawsuit. Accordingly, in the event there is apprehension or risk of the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status, obtaining a judgment of confirmation is the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate such apprehension or risk (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da218511, Dec. 11, 2014). However, the instant shares claimed by the Plaintiff to be trusted in trust to E and Q through D, and the fact that the Plaintiff’s shareholder registry was recorded in E and Q name, not the Defendant, is not a dispute between the parties.

Therefore, even if the Plaintiff’s shareholder of the instant shares was confirmed to be the Plaintiff, the effect of the judgment does not extend to E or Q as a shareholder on the acquisition of the instant shares by transfer of the instant shares and registered as a shareholder on the register of shareholders, and thus does not constitute an effective and appropriate means to eliminate the Plaintiff’s right or legal status unstable. Therefore, the instant lawsuit against the Defendant for which the shareholder of the instant shares seeks confirmation to be the Plaintiff is unlawful as

(see Supreme Court Decision 2014Da218511, supra). 4. Conclusion, the instant lawsuit ought to be dismissed as unlawful.

The judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is groundless.