1. All plaintiffs' lawsuits are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. As to the Defendant’s main defense, the Plaintiffs asserted that the instant resolution that appointed M, etc. as the Defendant’s executive officers is null and void by a resolution that did not meet the quorum, and sought confirmation of its invalidation, the Defendant made a resolution that appoints a new executive officer after the instant resolution, and thus, the Plaintiffs are no longer interested in seeking confirmation of invalidity of the instant resolution.

2. Determination

A. In a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity or non-existence of a resolution to appoint an executive officer of an organization on the ground that the resolution was defective, if the person appointed by the resolution was no longer in the position of the executive officer at the expiration of the term of office or resignation, etc. and the new executive officer was appointed lawfully thereafter, the lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity or non-existence of the resolution to appoint the executive officer at issue is unlawful due to lack of the requirements for protection of rights due to

(See Supreme Court Decision 96Da24309 delivered on October 11, 1996, and Supreme Court Decision 98Da35754 delivered on December 22, 1998, etc.) B.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 3 and 5, it is recognized that M, etc. was appointed as an executive of the defendant on November 1, 2015, and his term of office has expired pursuant to Article 15(3) of the Defendant’s Articles of Incorporation (three years). The fact that new executive officers were elected at the special general meeting of the defendant on November 17, 2018 held after the expiration of the term of office does not conflict between the parties

C. However, even in the past legal relations, if the current rights or legal status is affected by the present rights or legal status, and it is recognized that obtaining a judgment on confirmation of the legal relations is a valid means to eliminate risks or apprehensions about the present rights or legal status, there is benefit in confirmation

However, the resolution of this case is the sole basis of the plaintiffs' assertion and submission evidence. (See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da36407, Jan. 14, 2010).