1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part concerning the claim for confirmation of shareholder status is dismissed.

2. The remaining claims of the plaintiff are dismissed.

3...

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant as a party (hereinafter "the defendant company") is a company established on September 9, 2004 for the main purpose of manufacturing and wholesale steel products.

On November 20, 2009, the Defendant Company increased its capital to 400 million won (the total number of shares issued, 40,000 won per share). As of December 7, 201, as of December 7, 201, the representative director C was holding 16,00 shares for company directors, G 4,400 shares for company directors, and C’s spouse, for 3,600 shares for company directors, and E, who are D’s children, was in office as auditor for the Defendant Company, but did not hold the shares for the Defendant Company.

B. 1) C, while having experienced difficulties in operating the Defendant Company, was introduced the Plaintiff as a professional manager by the branch, and the Plaintiff was working in the Defendant Company from July 201 to December 2011. 2) On December 7, 2011, the Plaintiff drafted a share sales contract between C, D, and E to acquire 16,00 shares of the Defendant Company (C), 3,600 shares (D), 4,400 shares (E) per share between C, D, and E.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant contract”). [Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 6, and the purport of the entire pleadings

2. In a lawsuit for confirmation of ex officio as to the part of the claim for confirmation of shareholder status, there is a benefit of confirmation as a requirement for protection of rights. The benefit of confirmation is recognized only when it is the most effective and appropriate means to obtain judgment against the defendant in order to eliminate the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status in danger, apprehension, and danger. Thus, in a lawsuit for confirmation of shareholder status, filing a lawsuit for confirmation of confirmation is not a final method of resolution of dispute, and thus there is no benefit of confirmation.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da36215, Jul. 14, 2005). The Plaintiff may claim a transfer of ownership against the Defendant by asserting that he/she is a shareholder of each of the instant shares. As such, the Plaintiff is subject to a confirmation judgment against the Defendant.