1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. On May 19, 2004, C, the representative director of the defendant and the plaintiff, the representative director of the defendant's assertion, owned 100% of shares in the register of shareholders, but the plaintiff was registered in the register of shareholders as holding 28% of shares. On July 2006, C, the plaintiff, the representative director of the defendant, and the plaintiff, the representative director of the defendant's assertion, changed the share ratio on the register of shareholders.

The plaintiff is a shareholder in the form of a director working in the defendant company, not a substantial shareholder.

Nevertheless, the director of the tax office of the Class III considers that the defendant's delinquent national taxes and additional dues are oligopolistic shareholders under Article 39 (2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes and thus, the plaintiff has the secondary tax liability, and thus, it is highly likely that the plaintiff will impose additional tax.

In addition, the plaintiff operates an enterprise of the same type of business as the defendant. The plaintiff's living is directly affected by the plaintiff's living, because the other party who suffered from the suffering due to the defendant's failure to receive credit debts, etc. from the defendant is mistaken that the plaintiff is the actual shareholder of the defendant, thereby avoiding the transaction with the plaintiff's business

Therefore, only obtaining confirmation of non-existence of a shareholder status through the instant lawsuit is the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate the above anxiety and danger existing in the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status. Therefore, the Plaintiff seeks confirmation against the Defendant that the Plaintiff is not a shareholder of the Defendant.

2. We examine, ex officio, whether the instant lawsuit is lawful or not.

A. In a lawsuit for confirmation, there must be a benefit of confirmation as a requirement for the protection of rights. The benefit of confirmation is recognized only when it is the most effective and appropriate means for the defendant to receive a judgment of confirmation against the defendant in order to eliminate the anxiety and danger in the plaintiff's rights or legal status. Therefore, the defendant of the lawsuit for confirmation is the defendant of the lawsuit for confirmation.