2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant B is dismissed.

Therefore, the Defendants confirm that the shareholders of the above shares are the Plaintiff, and the Defendant Company is obligated to implement the transfer procedure for the above shares.

2. The plaintiff ex officio determination as to the legitimacy of the lawsuit against the defendant C and D is seeking confirmation against the defendant C and D as to whether the shareholder of the shares in this case is the plaintiff.

However, as seen below, the entire shares of this case are issued by the Defendant Company and delivered from Defendant C, D to Nonparty E, and it is recognized that Defendant C, and D cannot transfer the shares of this case to the Plaintiff any more. Even if the shareholders of this case are confirmed to be the Plaintiff, the effect of the judgment does not extend to the company that issued the shares, or to Nonparty E, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for confirmation against the above Defendants does not have any benefit of confirmation.

3. Determination as to claims against the Defendant Company

A. On July 22, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into an investment agreement with the Defendant Company (the date of establishment, July 8, 201), and with Defendant D, the Plaintiff paid KRW 800 million to the Defendant Company on October 25, 201, and Defendant D entered into an investment agreement with the intent to provide the Plaintiff with the entire shares of the Defendant Company as collateral. (2) around July 22, 2011, Defendant C and D transfer and acquire shares with the purport that the said Defendants transfer KRW 10,000 of each face value to the Plaintiff KRW 2,500 of each of the shares issued by the Defendant Company.