1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. All of the plaintiffs' claims for confirmation added in the trial.

1. We examine whether the part of the plaintiffs' claim for confirmation added in the trial is legitimate ex officio.

A lawsuit for confirmation is recognized in cases where it is the most effective means to obtain a judgment in order to eliminate the risk of uncertainty when the legal status of the plaintiffs is unstable.

Therefore, even though a lawsuit seeking implementation may be filed, it is not a final solution of the dispute, and therefore there is no benefit of confirmation.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da60239 Decided March 9, 2006, etc.). The Plaintiffs, in the instant lawsuit, seek partial payment against the Defendant by asserting that the Plaintiffs are the right to share the instant fishery compensation as the Defendant’s fraternity members, and thus, there is no benefit to seek confirmation that the Plaintiffs are the right to share the instant fishery compensation.

The lawsuit on the plaintiffs' claim for confirmation added in the trial is unlawful.

2. The plaintiffs' claim for the payment of fishery compensation

A. The reasons why the court accepted this part of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows with respect to the plaintiffs' assertion added by the appellate court.

In addition to the judgment of the court of first instance, the relevant description is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. The plaintiffs' assertion and determination added at the trial of the trial, on the grounds that the fishery compensation of this case was distributed to some of the persons who are not the defendant's members of the court of appeal, asserts that the defendant's denial of the status of the distribution authority of the fishery compensation of this case and the payment of such compensation are contrary to the principle of good faith or the principle of equity.

However, as alleged by the plaintiffs, the defendant paid the fishery compensation of this case to those who are not in the position of the distribution authority.