Of the instant lawsuits, the Plaintiff’s respective claims against Defendant B, C, and D and the Plaintiff’s claim for confirmation against Defendant E.

1. We examine the legitimacy of this part of the lawsuit against Defendant B, C, and D ex officio determination as to the legitimacy of the lawsuit.

The plaintiff did not amend the purport of the claim against the above Defendants despite the order to prepare for the statement of name in this court, and as to the reasons therefor, the above Defendants asserted to the effect that there is a benefit of confirmation since they are disputes that the plaintiff is the shareholder of defendant E.

(1) The Plaintiff’s claim as to Defendant B, C, and D is not specifically specified, and the Plaintiff’s claim as to Defendant B, C, and D in this case’s lawsuit is unlawful, since it is difficult to view that the purport of the claim is clearly recognizable.

Meanwhile, even if the plaintiff's claim against the defendant B, C, and D was asserted as the plaintiff's claim for confirmation of shareholder status against the above defendants, there is no evidence to deem that there is any apprehension and danger in the plaintiff's rights or legal status among the above defendants merely a third party. Thus, the plaintiff's lawsuit against the above defendants does not have interest in confirmation. In this regard, the part of the plaintiff's claim against the above defendants among the lawsuit of this case is unlawful.

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant E

A. Defendant E’s defense as to the legitimacy of the part concerning the claim for confirmation of shareholder status among the instant lawsuit is unlawful on the ground that there is no benefit of confirmation as to the part concerning the Plaintiff’s claim for confirmation among the lawsuit, and thus, we examine whether this part of the lawsuit

Even though a lawsuit for performance can be brought, permitting the claim for confirmation of the existence of the performance itself is not effective in removing unstables. Thus, filing a lawsuit for confirmation in this case is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation.

(See Supreme Court Decision 93Da40089 delivered on November 22, 1994). Meanwhile, the transfer of registered shares may be effective against the company unless the transfer of ownership is changed.