1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

Of the instant lawsuits, the part of the claim for nullification of the change of shareholder name.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the facts is as stated in the item of “1. Basic Facts” among the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, it is accepted pursuant to the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. 2. Whether the part of the claim for nullification of the change of shareholder’s name is lawful is the most lawful act to avoid the Plaintiff’s compulsory execution, and the Defendants seek confirmation of the change of shareholder’s name between the Defendants as to the shares of this case. The Defendants asserted that the part of the claim for invalidity of the above confirmation is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation. Since the lawsuit for confirmation is recognized as one of the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate the Plaintiff’s legal status’s apprehension and danger, filing a lawsuit for performance does not have a benefit of confirmation because it is not a final solution of the dispute. However, the Plaintiff’s assertion and proof that the change of shareholder’s name as a provisional attachment authority is invalid, and thus, the Plaintiff’s remaining part of the claim and its legal interest in the part of this case’s claim for nullification cannot be deemed to exist.