1. The plaintiffs' primary claim part among the lawsuit of this case is dismissed.

2. The plaintiffs' conjunctive claim.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is a stock company established on July 3, 2013 for the purpose of manufacturing, processing, and selling various concrete secondary products.

B. The Defendant’s total number of shares issued in early 2014 was 6,000 shares. Of them, D Husband and wife (E 2,400 shares, D 600 shares) and F Husband and wife (G 2,400 shares, F 60 shares) respectively owned 50% shares.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 2 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. ex officio determination as to the main claim (request for confirmation of shareholder's right) portion, there must be a benefit of confirmation as a requirement for protection of rights in a lawsuit for confirmation, and the benefit of confirmation is recognized only when it is the most effective and appropriate means to obtain a judgment against the defendant in order to eliminate the Plaintiff's right or legal status and risks, and thus, filing a lawsuit for confirmation is not a final solution of dispute, and thus there is no benefit of confirmation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da36215, Jul. 14, 2005). The plaintiffs may file a lawsuit for confirmation with the defendant by asserting that they are shareholders who have acquired the shares of this case through F husband and wife and H. Thus, obtaining a judgment against the defendant cannot be deemed the most effective and adequate means to eliminate anxiety and risks existing in the rights or legal status of the plaintiffs.

Therefore, the part of the plaintiffs' claim for confirmation of shareholders' rights in the lawsuit of this case is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation

3. Judgment on the conjunctive claim

A. The gist of the Plaintiffs’ assertion was that the F Husband and wife held 3,000 shares equivalent to 50% of the Defendant’s issued shares transferred the shares to H around June 20, 2014. The Plaintiffs acquired 1,500 shares of the instant shares to H around December 2015. As such, the Defendant acquired 1,500 shares of the instant shares via F Husband and wife and H.