2. February 1, 2015 of Defendant Social Welfare Foundation C

A lawsuit for confirmation is recognized only where there is an immediate interest in confirmation, that is, existing danger or apprehensions in the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status, and taking judgment against the Defendant in order to eliminate such danger or apprehensions, is the most effective and appropriate means.

However, the resolution by the board of directors of a social welfare foundation is a decision-making by the social welfare foundation and the subject of legal relations arising therefrom is a social welfare foundation. If there is a dispute over the existence or validity of a resolution to appoint directors against the social welfare foundation, it may remove the Plaintiffs’ rights or legal status in an effective and effective manner only by the resolution. A judgment by confirmation against an individual who is not a social welfare foundation does not have the effect thereof, and thus, the lawsuit seeking such confirmation is unlawful, as there is no immediate confirmation interest.

(See Supreme Court Decisions 90Da14058 Decided June 25, 1991, and 96Da6295 Decided April 12, 1996, etc.). This legal doctrine equally applies to cases where a social welfare foundation seeks confirmation of the existence or validity of a resolution of appointment of director, and seeks confirmation of the absence of director status as a defendant for an individual of director (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da30676, Oct. 28, 2010). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, seeking confirmation of the absence of director status against Defendant E, F, and G (hereinafter “Defendant Foundation”) on the instant case does not have the effect of such confirmation judgment, and thus, the Plaintiffs’ rights or legal status of the Defendant Foundation may be removed in an effective and imminent manner.