All appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Basic Facts

The court's explanation on this part is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus cite it as it is in accordance with Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The plaintiffs asserted that the defendant company's attorney's attorney's attorney's attorney's attorney's attorney's attorney's attorney's attorney's representative director is defective.

According to the evidence No. 37, E was appointed to the representative director of the defendant company on March 2, 2020, and on March 3, 2020, it can be recognized that the above matters were registered. The fact that the defendant company's legal representative submitted a letter of delegation to this court on April 17, 2020 is obvious.

According to the above facts of recognition, it is reasonable to view that the attorney of the defendant company has been legally granted the power of attorney from the defendant company, and it cannot be deemed that there was a defect in the power of attorney only because the plaintiffs asserted.

The above assertion by the plaintiffs is without merit.

The gist of the plaintiffs' assertion on the claim against defendant E was that defendant E prepared a written statement and a witness statement in the status of the representative director of the defendant company in the first lawsuit, and gave testimony in this case, thereby making the plaintiffs be able to receive the share transfer price from the defendant company.

Therefore, the plaintiffs, based on their trust, filed a second lawsuit against the defendant company claiming compensation for the transfer of shares of this case before the appellate court rendered a judgment on the first lawsuit, but the defendant company did not have an obligation to pay the price in accordance with the prohibition of acquisition of shares of this case.

The plaintiffs are second in cases where "the defendant E's occupational act (the preparation of the statement and the testimony of this case)" was not followed.