1. Of the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against Defendant D, part of the claim for confirmation of the shareholder’s rights of the shares listed in the attached Table 1.

1. Of the lawsuit in this case, the lawsuit of confirmation of the legitimacy of the part concerning the claim for confirmation of shareholders' rights against Defendant D is recognized in cases where it is the most effective and appropriate means to determine the legal status of the plaintiff when the legal status of the plaintiff is at risk, and thus, it is possible to file a lawsuit of claim for performance. However, the lawsuit of confirmation is not a final solution of the dispute, and thus there is no benefit of confirmation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da60239, Mar. 9, 2006). The plaintiff may file a transfer claim against Defendant B and C by proving that he is the beneficial shareholder of the shares in this case. Thus, the obtaining a judgment of confirmation against the defendant company cannot be deemed the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate the anxiety risk existing in the rights or legal status of the plaintiff asserted by the plaintiff.

Therefore, the part of the Plaintiff’s claim for confirmation of shareholder rights against the Defendant Company is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation.

2. Determination as to the remaining claims

(a)as shown in Appendix 2 of the Request;

(b) Articles 208 (3) 1 and 257 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act of the applicable provisions of Acts;

3. In conclusion, the part of the claim for confirmation of the shareholder's rights against Defendant D among the lawsuit in this case is unlawful and dismissed, and the remaining claims are accepted for the reasons, and it is so decided as per Disposition.