1. The plaintiffs' appeals against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance regarding this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the part of the judgment of the court of first instance is cited or added as follows. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The modification shall be made by cutting the “N” of No. 10 on the 9th part to “I”.

Article 10 (2) 2 (5) of the Civil Procedure Act (hereinafter “Defendant E”) provides that “The Plaintiff’s statement on the grounds of the theft of Defendant E is without credibility.” The Plaintiff asserted that “The Defendant E’s official seal and seal impression affixed to the Defendant educational foundation G attorney-at-law in the name of the Defendant educational foundation.” However, the Defendant E asserts that the original copy of the litigant was crushed. According to the result of the document appraisal, it is recognized that the Plaintiff had the original copy of the Delegation. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s statement on the grounds of the theft of Defendant E is without credibility.”

According to the records of Gap evidence No. 31, Gap evidence No. 34-1, and Eul evidence No. 34-2, on March 2, 2010, with regard to the request for the appraisal of the document on the delegation of the lawsuit submitted by the plaintiff Gap and the copy of the delegation of the lawsuit submitted by the plaintiff Gap to the Supreme Court on March 2, 2010 as the original copy of the delegation of the lawsuit, the foreign document appraiser submitted an appraisal result that the above delegation of the lawsuit is presumed to have been reproduced or stored and transferred in a single document ( Daejeon District Court Decision 2011No526 thie, etc.). As to the delegation of the lawsuit submitted by the plaintiff Gap as the original copy of the delegation of the lawsuit, the Korean Science Investigation Institute sent the appraisal result that the name of "the president of the school juristic person C" affixed with the above document is presumed to have been sealed directly (the evidence of the Daejeon District Court Decision 2017

According to each of the above appraisal results, the question is whether the above plaintiff Gap's delegation letter of lawsuit was not the original copy of the litigation delegation letter claiming that the above plaintiff Gap was delivered by defendant E on March 3, 2010.

(b).