1. The part concerning the claim for confirmation in the lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The defendant C shall be the shares listed in the separate sheet.

1. Of the instant lawsuit, there should be a benefit of confirmation as a requirement for protection of rights in the lawsuit for confirmation of legitimacy of the part of the claim for confirmation. The benefit of confirmation is acknowledged in cases where there is dispute between the parties as to the relevant legal relationship, and thereby, the judgment of confirmation is the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate the risk of uncertainty when there is an unstable risk in the Plaintiff’s rights

The Plaintiff is demanding the Defendant C (hereinafter “Defendant C”) to demand the procedure for the transfer of shares on the premise that he/she has ownership of shares listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant shares”). Accordingly, there is no benefit to seek confirmation as to whether the instant shares are owned by the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the part of the claim for confirmation in the lawsuit of this case is unlawful.

2. In full view of the facts that there is no dispute over the judgment on the merits, the written evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and No. 1, and the whole purport of the pleadings, around August 2012, Defendant B prepared a draft of confirmation with the following contents as a major shareholder and representative director of the Defendant Company, and sent it to the Plaintiff by e-mail, and the Plaintiff may recognize the consent thereto.

B According to the facts of recognition C A C C, around August 2012, the Plaintiff and the Defendants agreed to transfer the instant shares equivalent to 30% of the Defendant Company’s shares to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant agreement”). Accordingly, according to the instant agreement, the Defendant Company is obligated to implement the transfer procedure for the instant shares to the Plaintiff.

The defendants, at the time of the contract of this case, stored 9% of the purchase of low temperature Pl Rate, 9% of which the plaintiff himself/herself takes charge of the D company, and changed 30% of the shares in return for securing sales in the future. The contract of this case is a conditional donation or conditional donation.