1. The part of the Plaintiff’s claim for confirmation of shareholder’s rights against Defendant F Co., Ltd. is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff, defendant B, C.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff currently holds 48,00 shares out of 80,00 shares issued on the list of shareholders of Defendant F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”). Defendant B currently holds 8,00 shares in the above list of shareholders; Defendant C is a shareholder of 8,000 shares issued on the above list of shareholders; Defendant C is a shareholder of 8,000 shares out of the above shares issued; Defendant D is a shareholder of 8,000 shares out of the above shares issued; and Defendant E is a shareholder of 8,00 shares out of the above shares issued (hereinafter “each shares of this case”).

B. However, each of the instant shares was concluded with Defendant B, C, D, and E by entering into a title trust agreement, and only the name of the shareholder on the register of shareholders was in the future of the said Defendants.

C. On September 1, 2015, the Plaintiff terminated the title trust agreement on each of the instant shares to Defendant B, C, D, and E with the service of the briefs as of September 1, 2015, and the said briefs were served to the said Defendants on September 2, 2015.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff paid the purchase price of each of the instant shares.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 10 (including each number in the case of additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant company requires 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 thus, filing a lawsuit for confirmation despite the fact that it is possible to file a lawsuit for performance is not a final solution of the dispute, and there is no benefit of confirmation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da36215, Jul. 14, 2005). The plaintiff asserted that he/she is a shareholder of each of the shares of this case.