1. The part concerning the claim for confirmation of shareholder's rights in the lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) was established on June 3, 2003 with the purpose of real estate sale and lease business, etc. as the capital of KRW 450 million and the total number of issued and outstanding shares of KRW 450 million.

B. At the time of incorporation, E holds 18,00 shares and F and G own 13,50 shares, respectively.

On October 31, 2003, H acquired all of the shares of the above E, etc., and stated that H 13,500 shares, I 13,50 shares, D 9,00 shares, and the Plaintiff acquired shares of 9,000 shares (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s shares”). C. The statement on changes in shares, etc. of the Defendant Company in 2006 stated D as acquiring the shares of this case from the Plaintiff on April 6, 2006. Meanwhile, on April 6, 2006, the Plaintiff transferred the shares of this case to D, and D paid the amount of KRW 90,000,000 to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff paid the amount of KRW 90,000 to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff paid the amount of KRW 9,00,000 shares to the Plaintiff.

A. [Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and Eul evidence Nos. 1, 6 (including paper numbers)

2. We examine the legitimacy of the part of the claim for confirmation of shareholder's rights in the instant lawsuit ex officio, based on determination on the part of claim for confirmation.

A lawsuit for confirmation requires the benefit of confirmation as a requirement for the protection of rights, and the benefit of confirmation is recognized only when it is the most effective and appropriate means to obtain a judgment from the defendant in order to eliminate the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status in danger, apprehension and danger. Thus, filing a lawsuit for confirmation even though it is possible to file a lawsuit for performance, there is no benefit of confirmation because it is not a final solution of a dispute.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da36215 Decided July 14, 2005, etc.).