1. There is no stock transfer contract between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants listed in the separate sheet as of March 20, 2012.

1. On March 20, 2012, Defendant C drafted a share transfer contract with the purport that the shares 500 shares listed in attached Table 1, which are owned by Defendant C will be transferred, and Defendant D prepared a share transfer contract with the purport that the shares 1,000 shares listed in attached Table 2, which are listed in attached Table 2, will be transferred to Plaintiff A, and 200 shares listed in attached Table 3 to Plaintiff B. At the time, Plaintiff A went home to the United States and was living in the United States for employment, and Plaintiff B was living in the United States. However, the Defendants arbitrarily prepared each of the above contracts without the consent of the Plaintiffs, and each of the shares listed in attached Table 2 under the name of the Plaintiffs pursuant to each of the above shares transfer contracts (hereinafter “each of the instant shares transfer contracts”). There is no dispute between the parties.

2. Determination

A. As to the plaintiffs' non-existence of each share transfer contract of this case as to the defendant's main defense, the defendants asserted that the lawsuit of this case is unlawful since there are no market prices for each share listed in the separate sheet, and there are no economic benefits.

On the other hand, a lawsuit seeking the non-existence of a share transfer/acquisition contract cannot be deemed as seeking the non-existence of a share transfer contract itself, which is a previous legal act, rather than seeking the non-existence of a share transfer contract itself (see Supreme Court Decision 86Meu2675, Jul. 7, 1987). Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiffs' claim by the lawsuit in this case is not related to the past legal relationship or factual and economic interests, but rather to seek the absence of a present legal relationship based on the specific and legal interests of each share stated in the separate sheet, the transfer of which is owned by the plaintiffs, and therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the defendants' claim by the lawsuit in this case is the purport of seeking the absence