1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. The defendant's judgment on the main defense of this case is unlawful because the lawsuit of this case is not subject to standing or there is no benefit of confirmation.

The Plaintiff stated 10% of the issued shares of DS Comprehensive Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “DS Comprehensive Construction”), but in fact, the Plaintiff holds 25% of the issued shares, and sought confirmation as to the authenticity of the statement of stock transfer.

On the other hand, Article 250 of the Civil Procedure Act provides, “The lawsuit for confirmation may also be instituted in order to determine whether or not the document verifying the legal relations is authentic.” Thus, the document that is the object of the lawsuit to confirm the authenticity of the deed is the document directly proving the legal relations, and the “document proving the legal relations” means the document that directly proves the existence or absence of a specific legal relationship from the content of the statement.

In addition, Article 250 of the Civil Procedure Act permits a lawsuit to confirm the authenticity of a deed, as a result, no longer dispute may be raised as to whether a document verifying the authenticity of the deed becomes final and conclusive, and as a result, the dispute itself concerning legal relations or at least contributed to the resolution of the dispute itself. Therefore, in order to confirm the legitimacy of a lawsuit to confirm the authenticity of the deed, there is a benefit to seek confirmation of the authenticity of the document.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da29290, Jun. 14, 2007). However, the statement of stock transfer in the instant case for which the Plaintiff seeks confirmation of truth-finding is merely a document in which a private person arranged the status of stock transfer by date.

Therefore, the statement of stock transfer of this case is directly specified from the contents of the statement.