1. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Determination as to the plaintiffs' respective claims against the defendants

A. Plaintiffs 1) Plaintiff A’s assertion is the wife of net G (the death of January 10, 2003) and the rest of the Plaintiffs are G’s own consciousness, Defendant E’s dynamics, Defendant F’s her children, and Defendant E’s her children. 2) on September 1, 1994 when Non-Party H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “H”) was established, the Plaintiff acquired 20,800 shares out of the issued shares. On December 31, 1995, the Plaintiff acquired 25,200 shares and 14,000 shares each at the time of capital increase.

This is because G has contributed to establishing and managing K Co., Ltd., the parent company of H (hereinafter “K”), along with Defendant E, Nonparty J, etc., as the representative director or auditor of G I, and has been allocated as a meritorious deed.

3) The Defendants are 60,00 shares of KRW 5,000 (Defendant E is 50,000 shares, Defendant F is 10,000 shares, and hereinafter “instant shares”) issued by H from December 31, 202 from G.

A) The Defendants agreed to purchase KRW 300,000,000, and completed the transfer process in the name of the Defendants. (4) Although the Defendants agreed to purchase the said shares from G to pay the said price later if financial standing is good, the Defendants did not pay the said price up to now.

The Plaintiffs came to know of the fact of the sale of shares in the course of undergoing a tax investigation in 2005, but they came to know of the fact that no payment has been made, and seek payment of the amount stated in each claim to the Defendants from G’ co-inheritors according to their respective inheritance shares as co-inheritors.

B. The Defendants’ assertion 1) Defendant E held title trust with 60,000 shares of this case in the name of G. As the health of G worsens, the title trust was terminated and 50,000 shares were reverted to Defendant E, and the remaining 10,000 shares were changed to Defendant F. 2) Even if the sales contract for the shares of this case was concluded between New Company G and the Defendants, the Plaintiffs’ instant sales contract against the Defendants was concluded.