1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part concerning the preliminary counterclaim added by the court shall be dismissed.

2. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff).

1. We examine ex officio the determination on the part of the conjunctive counterclaim claim among the instant lawsuit, as to whether the part of the conjunctive counterclaim claim among the instant lawsuit is legitimate.

A lawsuit for confirmation is recognized in cases where obtaining a judgment of confirmation is the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate the uncertainty and risk of legal status, and it is recognized that filing a lawsuit for confirmation is not the final solution of a dispute, and therefore there is no benefit in confirmation because it is not the final solution of a dispute.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2016Da241249 Decided January 12, 2017, etc.). Of the instant lawsuit, the part regarding the conjunctive counterclaim in the instant lawsuit is that “F, a truster under the instant contract, agreed to the effect that it will transfer 4,400 shares, the total shares of the Defendant Company, 15,000 shares, 29%, to the Defendant, and thus, obtain confirmation of ownership of the said shares 4,400 shares.”

However, the defendant's above preliminary counterclaim claim should be the cause of claim for transfer agreement under the premise that the above shares accrue to F or the plaintiff. Although the defendant can file a lawsuit for performance of claim for transfer of the above shares, the defendant's lawsuit for confirmation is not an effective and appropriate method for a final resolution of the dispute, and it cannot be deemed that there is a benefit of confirmation.

Therefore, the part of the conjunctive counterclaim claim among the instant lawsuit is unlawful.

2. cite the judgment of the court of first instance

A. The Defendant’s grounds of appeal do not differ significantly from the allegations in the first instance court except for adding or emphasizing the following arguments, and comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly examined in the first instance court, the Defendant’s dismissal of the part concerning the primary counterclaim claim seeking confirmation of invalidity of the instant contract among the instant lawsuits on the ground that there is no active benefit as a counterclaim, other than seeking dismissal of the principal claim, and the Defendant’s assignment of the instant shares to the Plaintiff.