beta
Text
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. On October 4, 1994, the gist of the Plaintiff’s cause of claim: (a) on the Plaintiff’s contribution, the Plaintiff established C Co., Ltd., which was 510,000,000 capital; (b) held title trust with the Defendant as to the above company’s common shares 1,220 (hereinafter “instant shares”); and (c) on the instant shares, prior to the issuance of share certificates, the title trust should be terminated and returned to the Plaintiff’s name; (d) although the Defendant recognized the title trust relationship, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit for confirmation of the instant shares because it would submit a written judgment in order for
2. On the part of the board, the suit for confirmation as to the legitimacy of the suit of this case requires the benefit of confirmation as a requirement for protection of rights. The benefit of confirmation is recognized when the suit for confirmation is the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status in danger and danger.
If a person who has entrusted a shareholder’s name with respect to the shares before issuance of share certificates terminates a title trust agreement with the trustee, the shareholder’s right to the shares is returned to the title truster solely by the declaration of termination. In such a case, where a shareholder’s name listed in the register of shareholders substantially contests shareholder’s rights, the substantial shareholder has a benefit to seek confirmation of shareholder’s rights
(see Supreme Court Decision 2011Da109708, Feb. 14, 2013). However, in this case, the Defendant submitted a written answer that all of the Plaintiff’s shareholders’ rights are recognized, and the Plaintiff is also the person to whom the right to seek confirmation exists. As such, it cannot be deemed that there exists any legal uncertainty in the right to seek confirmation
In addition, although there is no dispute with the trustee, it cannot be said that there is a benefit of confirmation only for submitting it to the tax office like the plaintiff's assertion.
Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is confirmed.