1. All of the instant lawsuits are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion issued shares for capital increase on January 30, 2012, and without the Plaintiff’s permission, the Defendant accepted 20,000 shares of the Defendant Company without the Plaintiff’s permission, and registered them in the statement of the change of shares, etc. as if they were the shareholders of the Defendant Company.

In this case, the plaintiff seeks to confirm that he is not in the shareholder status of the defendant company by the lawsuit of this case, and at the same time, the defendant must implement the procedure for cancelling the shareholders' stocks in accordance with the defendant's statement of changes in stocks.

2. We examine ex officio whether the instant lawsuit is legitimate or not. A. We examine ex officio the legality of the instant lawsuit.

In a lawsuit seeking confirmation of non-existence of shareholder status, the benefit of confirmation is required as a requirement for the protection of rights, and the benefit of confirmation is recognized only when it is the most effective means to eliminate the Plaintiff’s right or legal status in danger of apprehension (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da68650, 68667, Feb. 9, 2007).

Therefore, the claim for confirmation of non-existence of shareholder status is the most effective means to eliminate the plaintiff's existing uneasiness in legal status related to tax issues, etc.

Therefore, the part of the Plaintiff’s claim for confirmation of absence of shareholder status is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation.

B. Article 337(1) of the Commercial Act of the part demanding cancellation of shareholders, etc. on the statement of changes in stocks, etc. provides that the register of shareholders shall contain the names and addresses of the acquisitor.