1. A share transfer agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on November 29, 201 is null and void.

1. The Defendant, on November 29, 201, prepared a share transfer contract stating that the shares listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant shares”) owned by the Defendant will be transferred to the Plaintiff. At the time, the Defendant, without the Plaintiff’s consent, arbitrarily prepared the said share transfer contract, and the Plaintiff was not aware of the existence of the instant shares, and the fact that the instant shares are currently registered in the name of the Plaintiff pursuant to the share transfer contract under the said share transfer contract (hereinafter “instant share transfer contract”) is not a dispute between the parties.

2. As to the plaintiff's claim for confirmation of non-existence of the share transfer contract of this case, the defendant not only sought confirmation of the past legal relationship, but also asserted that the contract of share transfer of this case was re-transfer of the shares of this case to C to the plaintiff around 2009, and that there is no benefit to seek confirmation of non-existence of the share transfer contract of this case since there is no legally protected status for the plaintiff who was transferred the shares from the defendant who was not entitled to the above shares.

On the other hand, a lawsuit seeking the non-existence of a share transfer contract or the invalidity thereof shall not be deemed as seeking the non-existence of a share transfer contract itself or the invalidity thereof, which is a previous legal act, but shall be deemed as seeking the confirmation of the non-existence of, or invalidity of, the current legal relationship based on the contract, on the ground that the contract does not exist or is null and void (see Supreme Court Decision 86Meu2675, Jul. 7, 1987). It is reasonable to deem that the plaintiff's filing of the lawsuit in this case is the purport of seeking the absence of the existing legal relationship based on the share transfer contract itself, not the non-existence of the share transfer contract in this case itself, and it is reasonable to view that the shares in