1. The plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant C and D shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's claims against the defendant B and E are all filed.

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant E Co., Ltd. (FF Co., Ltd., Ltd., prior to the change on October 5, 2005; hereinafter “Defendant E”) is a company engaged in the manufacture and processing business of a stratopy, etc., and Defendant C is the Plaintiff’s former wife who was divorced around 2002, Defendant D is the Plaintiff’s words of Defendant C, and Defendant C’s remaining students.

B. As of December 2015, Defendant B owns 47,00 shares (94%) and G owns 3,000 shares (6%) among the shares of Defendant E as of December 2015.

C. On January 13, 2016, the Plaintiff notified the Defendants that the title trust of the instant shares was terminated.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 5-1, 2-2, Eul evidence 14, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The determination of the claim against Defendant C and D ex officio is based on the following: (a) there is a dispute between the parties as to the legal relationship subject to the claim; and (b) thereby, it is recognized that the determination of the Plaintiff’s legal status as the confirmation judgment is the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate the risk of anxiety when the Plaintiff’s legal status is at risk (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da93299, Feb. 25, 2010). Upon the Plaintiff’s request, Defendant C and D did not own the shares listed in the separate sheet; and (c) seeking shareholder confirmation against Defendant C and D does not have any existing apprehension.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against Defendant C and D is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation.

3. Determination as to claims against Defendant B and E

A. At the time of the IMF relief financing, the Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) was a bad credit holder due to nonperformance of the business; and (b) inevitably established Defendant E under the name of friendly job offering H; and (c) was in title trust with the Defendants and the Plaintiff’s wife

Therefore, the Plaintiff and Defendant B confirmed that they are shareholders of the shares listed in the separate sheet, and Defendant E changed the name of the shares to the Plaintiff.