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

2. The plaintiff and the defendant.

1. The indication of the claim (the Plaintiff’s assertion) was established on February 6, 2017 for the purpose of developing and selling real estate. As to the common shares of Defendant E (hereinafter “instant shares”) on February 1, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with the Defendant B to conclude a title trust agreement with the Defendant B on the terms of 7,500 shares, 7,500 shares to Defendant C, and 4,500 shares to Defendant D, and paid the purchase price of the instant shares.

Pursuant to the above agreement, Defendant E’s shareholder registry was listed as Defendant B’s 7,500 share, Defendant C C’s 7,500 share, and Defendant D D’s 4,500 share, and the Defendants did not comply with the agreement even though the Plaintiff expressed his/her intent to request the Defendants prior to the institution of the instant lawsuit to terminate title trust or to implement transfer procedures.

The shareholder of the instant shares between the Plaintiff and the Defendants seeking confirmation of the Plaintiff’s appointment, and Defendant E is obligated to implement transfer procedures to change the name on the shareholder registry to the Plaintiff with respect to 7,500 shares listed in Defendant B’s name among the instant shares, 7,500 shares listed in Defendant C’s name, and 4,500 shares listed in Defendant D’s name, upon termination of title trust.

2. Determination on the part of the claim for confirmation of shareholder status against Defendant E (ex officio determination)

A. Although a lawsuit for confirmation is recognized where obtaining a judgment of confirmation is the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate anxietys and risks in legal status, and filing a lawsuit for confirmation is not the final solution of a dispute, and thus there is no benefit in confirmation because it is not the final solution of a dispute.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Da60239, Mar. 9, 2006; 2016Da241249, Jan. 12, 2017). Furthermore, whether there is a benefit in confirmation of a lawsuit seeking confirmation is a matter of ex officio investigation, and thus, the court should ex officio determine ex officio regardless of the party’s assertion.

(See Supreme Court Decision 91Da12905 delivered on July 12, 1991). Meanwhile, a person who acquired shares does not have any special reason.