The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows: ① Evidence No. 29, evidence No. 30-1, No. 2, and No. 30-3 are insufficient to recognize the plaintiff's claim for cancellation or rescission of the transfer contract of this case as additional evidence submitted at the court of first instance; ② The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the part of the judgment except for alteration or addition as follows; thus, it is acceptable as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance, which is either written or added, is subject to 2-C, No. 1.

The following shall be added to this subsection:

The share certificates with respect to the shares of this case have not been issued until the date of the closing of argument in the trial of the court of first instance as follows, from 3 to 4, 9 of the first instance judgment.

“(A) Legal doctrine 1) In a lawsuit for confirmation, there must be a benefit of confirmation as a requirement for protection of rights. The benefit of confirmation is recognized in cases where there is a dispute between the parties as to the legal relationship subject to confirmation and the Plaintiff’s right or legal status is the most effective and adequate means to eliminate the risk of anxiety (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da93299, Feb. 25, 2010). Even if the Plaintiff transferred to the Defendant, but the shares alleged to remain in ownership are already transferred to a third party, and the Defendant is not registered in the register of shareholders, even if the Plaintiff is confirmed as the Plaintiff’s shareholder, even if the shares were not registered in the register of shareholders, the effect of the judgment does not extend to a third party registered as the Plaintiff’s shareholder by transfer of shares to the Plaintiff’s company or shares that issued the shares, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for confirmation of the Plaintiff’s rights against the Defendant cannot be a valid and appropriate means to eliminate the Plaintiff

Supreme Court on December 11, 2014