1. The part of the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against Defendant B and the claim for ownership confirmation against Defendant C, respectively.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff was appointed as an auditor of Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) on July 25, 201, but was dismissed on March 28, 2012, and Defendant B was appointed as an internal director of the Defendant Co., Ltd. on July 25, 201.

B. Around July 2011, the Plaintiff: (a) held title trust with respect to Defendant B’s shares 1,000 shares (hereinafter “instant shares”); (b) accordingly, Defendant B was registered as the shareholder of the instant shares in the shareholder registry of the Defendant Company; (c) accordingly, Defendant B was registered as the shareholder of the instant shares.

C. After that, the Plaintiff notified Defendant B of the intent to terminate the title trust on the instant shares.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In a lawsuit seeking confirmation as to the legitimacy of a lawsuit against Defendant B, there is a benefit of confirmation as a requirement for the protection of rights. The benefit of confirmation is recognized only when it is the most effective and appropriate means to obtain a judgment against the Defendant to eliminate the risks of apprehensions with the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status. As such, the Defendant of the lawsuit seeking confirmation is a person likely to cause apprehensions in the Plaintiff’s legal status due to disputes over the Plaintiff’s rights or legal relations, and there is a benefit of confirmation against such Defendant.

Therefore, there is no dispute between the parties on the legal relationship and there is no legal uncertainty in principle, so there is no benefit of confirmation.

The Plaintiff sought confirmation against Defendant B that the instant shares are owned by the Plaintiff, and Defendant B recognized that the instant shares are owned by the Plaintiff, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that Defendant B denied them before and after the instant lawsuit was filed. Therefore, Defendant B cannot be said to have caused unstable risks in the Plaintiff’s legal status by dispute over the Plaintiff’s rights or legal relations.