1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. The parties' assertion

A. On October 26, 2015, the Plaintiffs asserted that the Defendant was legally dismissed from the position of representative director in accordance with the resolution of the board of directors of Nonparty D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) on October 26, 2015, and sought confirmation as to the fact that the Defendant was no longer in the position of representative director D.

B. As to this, the defendant is a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the absence of the representative director's status against the defendant who is not D, and there is no benefit of confirmation as it constitutes a lawsuit for erroneous designation of the defendant.

2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit

A. In a lawsuit seeking confirmation of relevant legal principles, there must be a benefit of confirmation as a requirement for the protection of rights, and the benefit of confirmation is recognized when receiving a judgment of confirmation is the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status in danger and danger existing in the Plaintiff’s legal status (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Da68650, Feb. 9, 2007; 2014Da208255, Mar. 15, 2017). However, in a lawsuit seeking confirmation of a representative or membership of an organization, a judgment citing such claim is issued.

Even if the judgment cannot be effective to the relevant organization, it cannot be the most effective and appropriate way to resolve the dispute between the parties surrounding the status of the representative or members. Thus, the claim against the representative or members without the organization is unlawful because there is no benefit of confirmation.

(Supreme Court Decision 91Da12905 Decided July 12, 1991; Supreme Court Decision 2006Da65774 Decided February 10, 201; Supreme Court Decision 201Da10155 Decided February 16, 201, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Da10155 Decided February 16, 201).

Judgment

In this case, the plaintiffs seek confirmation of the absence of representative director's status against the defendant who is not D, even if they want to confirm the absence of representative director's status.