All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the assertion of misapprehension of legal principles as to the interest in confirmation

A. The lower court determined that the Plaintiff’s primary claim against Defendant E, F, G, H, and I (hereinafter “the Defendants”) was unlawful on the ground that, inasmuch as the Plaintiffs asserted that each share acquisition agreement with the remaining Defendants is null and void, seeking the transfer of shares against the remaining Defendants is a direct means to resolve the dispute effectively and effectively, this part of the lawsuit is deemed unlawful on the ground that there is no benefit of confirmation.

However, the Plaintiff’s primary claim against the remaining Defendants is that the Plaintiff acquired shares in Defendant JA farming association (hereinafter “Defendant corporation”) based on the contract under the premise that the acquisition of shares does not exist or is null and void, and the remaining Defendants seeking confirmation that the Defendants are currently not in the status of investors and are currently in the status of investors. As such, there is a benefit of confirmation since the dispute can be considered as a means to most effectively resolve the dispute.

(See Supreme Court Decision 86Meu2675 delivered on July 7, 1987, etc.). Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the interest in confirmation that the lower court, based on the grounds stated in its reasoning, did not have any interest in the litigation.

However, as seen below in the determination under paragraph (2), the lower court’s conclusion that rejected the Plaintiffs’ remaining Defendants’ assertion such as the invalidation, revocation, or rescission of a share acquisition agreement is not acceptable.

Therefore, even if the judgment of the court below was accepted and reversed in this part of the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous change.