1. The plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant C and D shall be dismissed respectively.

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant B is dismissed.

3...

1. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the shares of the Plaintiff Company should be allocated in proportion to the investment amount ratio in accordance with the agreement between Defendant B, Nonparty E, F, G, and H. The Defendants did not have invested in the Plaintiff Company at all, and therefore are not shareholders of the Plaintiff Company.

Nevertheless, the Defendants asserted that the resolution of the provisional shareholders' meeting of the Plaintiff Company was null and void, or sought to exercise shareholders' rights by filing an application for inspection and provisional disposition of the account books, etc. against the Plaintiff Company. Accordingly, they sought confirmation that the Defendants were not the shareholders of the Plaintiff Company.

2. A lawsuit seeking confirmation as to the legitimacy of a lawsuit against Defendant C and D is allowed in cases where the Plaintiff’s right or legal status is in danger and obtaining a judgment of confirmation is a fundamental effective and appropriate means to resolve the dispute (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da101803, May 10, 2012). In short, first of all, a director dismissed by the resolution of the general meeting of shareholders may seek confirmation as to the invalidity of the relevant resolution of dismissal regardless of whether he/she is a shareholder (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 82Meu957, Dec. 14, 1982). Thus, even if Defendant C and D asserted the validity of the resolution of the general meeting of shareholders dismissed from his/her director, it is difficult to deem that the above Defendants exercised the said shareholder’s right.

In addition, there is no evidence to acknowledge that Defendant C and D applied for provisional disposition on inspection and copying of the Plaintiff Company’s account books, etc. on the ground of their shareholder status, and there is no other evidence to deem that the said Defendants asserted their shareholder status against the Plaintiff.

Therefore, it cannot be deemed that there is a dispute between Defendant C, D and the Plaintiff as to whether the Defendants are the Plaintiff’s shareholders.

The plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant C and D has no interest in confirmation.

3. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B