Of the instant lawsuit, the part demanding confirmation of the invalidity of the contract for the transfer of membership rights on May 11, 2018 shall be dismissed.

The plaintiff.

1. Part of the claim against the defendant B

(a) Indication of claims: To be as shown in the reasons for the claims;

(b) Judgment made by deemed confession (Article 208 (3) 2, the main sentence of Article 150 (3) and Article 150 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act);

2. The part seeking confirmation of invalidity of the transfer contract of membership rights against Defendant C (ex officio determination) was entrusted to Defendant C with the name of the employee right as to the number of contribution units listed in the attached list (hereinafter “instant employee right”). Nevertheless, Defendant C transferred 5,00 shares of contribution units with respect to the instant employee right to Defendant B. The above transfer contract is seeking confirmation of invalidity of the transfer contract against Defendant C by asserting that it is an anti-social legal act actively participated in the act of embezzlement by Defendant C.

In a lawsuit for confirmation, there must be a benefit of confirmation as a requirement for protection of a right. The benefit of confirmation is recognized only when it is the most effective and appropriate means to obtain a judgment from the defendant to eliminate such apprehensions and risks, and therefore, the defendant of the lawsuit for confirmation is a person likely to cause apprehensions and risks in the legal status of the plaintiff by dispute over the plaintiff's rights or legal relations, and there is a benefit of confirmation against such defendant.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 96Da11747 delivered on October 16, 1997). The Plaintiff seeks confirmation against the Defendant B, who entered into a transfer contract with Defendant C, on the ground that the said transfer contract becomes null and void, and that the number of contribution units with respect to the instant employee rights was returned to the Plaintiff, and thus, it is difficult to deem that there is a benefit to seek confirmation of the invalidity of the instant transfer contract, separate from the claim for confirmation of the above employee rights, in order to eliminate the present danger in the Plaintiff’s rights

3. Conclusion