1. The part of the plaintiffs' claim for confirmation of shareholders' rights against Defendant A corporation is dismissed.

2. The plaintiffs' defendant.

1. We examine ex officio determination on the part of the plaintiffs' claim for confirmation of shareholders' rights against the defendant A corporation, and examine whether the plaintiffs' interest in confirmation exists in the part of the plaintiffs' claim for confirmation of shareholders' rights against the defendant A corporation (hereinafter "A").

A lawsuit for confirmation is recognized in cases where it is the most effective and appropriate means to determine a lawsuit for confirmation as a confirmation judgment to eliminate such apprehension and danger when the legal status of the plaintiff is unstable and dangerous.

Therefore, even though it is possible to file a lawsuit claiming implementation, the filing of a lawsuit for confirmation is not a final solution of the dispute, and there is no benefit of confirmation.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da60239 Decided March 9, 2006). The plaintiffs can request the transfer of rights to the defendant A by proving that they are legitimate shareholders of the shares of this case. In fact, the plaintiffs are seeking the implementation of the transfer of rights in this case, and it cannot be deemed the most effective and appropriate means to remove the plaintiffs' rights or their legal status unstable risks. Thus, the plaintiffs' claim seeking the confirmation of shareholders' rights in the lawsuit against the defendant A is unlawful because there is no benefit of confirmation.

2. The Plaintiffs, as to the claim against Defendant B and the part regarding the claim for implementation of the transfer procedure against Defendant A, were to acquire 10,000 shares of each of the above shares from Defendant A on September 27, 2016, and owned them. The shareholders’ roster of Defendant A is to be registered as the shareholders of Defendant A even if Defendant B was not the actual shareholders. Defendant B asserts that he is the owner of the entire shares of Defendant A. As such, the Plaintiffs sought confirmation against Defendant B as the shareholders with 10,000 shares out of the total 30,000 shares of Defendant A, and transfer to Defendant A as to Defendant A’s entire shares with Defendant A’s 30,000 shares.