1. The judgment of the first instance, including the claims added by this court, shall be modified as follows:
In the lawsuit of this case.
1. Basic facts
A. Defendant F Co., Ltd. (former H Co., Ltd.; hereinafter “Defendant F”) is 10,000 shares issued by Defendant F with a company established on October 7, 2014.
Meanwhile, Defendant G Co., Ltd (hereinafter “Defendant G”) is a company established on December 12, 2014, and the total number of outstanding shares is 10,000 shares.
B. Defendant B and C are the relatives by marriage of I (Defendant B, Defendant C, and Defendant C) and entered in the register of shareholders as a shareholder at the time of establishment of Defendant F and G along with I.
Since then, as shown in the attached Table 2, there are changes in the shareholders' list of Defendant F and G, and currently Defendant D, E and G are currently entered in the shareholders' list as Defendant F and G shareholders.
C. On the other hand, on November 23, 2016, a written contract for transfer and acquisition (hereinafter “instant transfer contract”) was prepared, stating that “I terminated a title trust agreement on each of the shares listed in the separate sheet No. 1 that it concluded with Defendant B and C (hereinafter “instant shares,” and the individual shares are specified in the separate sheet No. 1 list) and transfer all of the instant shares to the Plaintiff.”
On November 24, 2016, I notified Defendant B and C that the title trust agreement will be terminated, and notified Defendant F and G that the name of the shareholder would be changed to the Plaintiff because the title trust agreement on the instant shares was terminated.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1-8, Eul evidence No. 5, Eul evidence No. 3 (including provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), part of witness I of this court, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. We examine the part concerning Defendant B and C among the instant lawsuit ex officio as to the legitimacy of the part concerning Defendant B and C.
In a lawsuit for confirmation, there must be a benefit of confirmation as a requirement for the protection of rights, and the benefit of confirmation is disputed between the parties as to the legal relationship subject to it, and due to which the plaintiff's right or legal status is unstable or dangerous.