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

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

1. To dismiss “D” as “D” on the grounds of the first instance judgment of the facts constituting the basis for the judgment;

C. In addition to the fact that “the Defendant” under Paragraph 21 is deemed to be “from the Plaintiff,” this court’s reasoning is identical to Paragraph 1 of Article 1 of the Civil Procedure Act, and thus, this Court’s reasoning is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiffs did not transfer I shares to M and the Defendants, and did not receive the transfer proceeds.

Since the transfer of shares held by the plaintiffs to the defendant is null and void because they were made without permission regardless of the plaintiffs' intent, the plaintiffs seek confirmation of shareholders' rights against the defendants as legitimate shareholders.

B. The Defendants N and M agreed to accept I, and M and the Plaintiffs transferred all I shares to N, M and their children around February 1994, and the Plaintiffs are not shareholders of I.

3. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 2, Nos. 3, 4, 5, 17, and 18 of the judgment, following the death of the Plaintiff C, the Plaintiff agreed to take over N and M while managing the Plaintiff C. A. From February 1994, M and the Plaintiffs transferred the I-owned shares to M and their children (the flow of the overall dialogue indicated in the evidence No. 3 record, M actively participated in the conversation, and considerably detailed statement, and the Plaintiff, who participated in the conversation, also made the statement in the statement with M and M, and made corresponding statements, trust of the above contents of the conversation. The Plaintiff and theO prepared a confirmation document confirming the acquisition of the I-owned shares by the Defendant on January 1, 201, but it is difficult for the Plaintiff to find reasons for preparing a false confirmation document at that time. The Plaintiff also prepared the document to the effect that M and the Plaintiff mutually resigned from the Plaintiff’s representative director on February 15, 2017.