1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The defendant is a company established for the purpose of civil engineering, construction, construction, etc. on August 30, 200.

B. The Defendant’s register of shareholders states that the Plaintiff owns 9,000 shares out of 60,000 shares of the Defendant.

C. Around May 8, 2014, the head of the tax office notified the Plaintiff that: (a) around 2012, the Plaintiff accepted the Defendant’s forfeited stocks of KRW 9,000; (b) accordingly, the Plaintiff is deemed to have donated KRW 224,586,00; and (c) accordingly, the Plaintiff may be subject to the imposition of taxes, such as gift tax.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, and the result of this court's inquiry and reply to the head of the Gold District Tax Office

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff did not accept 9,000 common shares from the Defendant, but entered the Defendant’s shareholder registry as an owner of the shares, and thus, received notification from the tax office of scheduled imposition of gift tax, etc.

Therefore, the plaintiff seeks confirmation against the defendant that the plaintiff is not the defendant's shareholder.

B. The Defendant’s assertion is the Defendant’s shareholder who accepted the Defendant’s common share of 9,000 shares around March 30, 2012.

3. Determination on the lawfulness of the instant lawsuit

A. We examine ex officio the lawfulness of the instant lawsuit.

In a lawsuit for confirmation, there must be a benefit of confirmation as a requirement for protection of a right. The benefit of confirmation is recognized when the judgment of confirmation becomes the most effective and appropriate means in order to cause risks or apprehensions to the plaintiff's rights or legal status and to cause risks or apprehensions.

However, in the case of this case, the purpose of the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is to escape from the tax disadvantage, and such disadvantage is merely a factual and economic interest in relation to the defendant, and it does not constitute legal interest. In addition, the lawsuit of this case is judged in favor of the plaintiff.

for Korea, even if any.