All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. The grounds of appeal are examined as to Plaintiff A’s appeal (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

As to the ground of appeal No. 1, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that Article 29 of the Public Property and Commodity Management Act (hereinafter “Public Property Act”) cannot be deemed as the provision to solely sell securities, which are public property, only by means of sale of securities under Article 9(9) of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act.

In light of the relevant legal principles, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the interpretation of Article 29 of the Public Property Act, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

B. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, the lower court determined that it was difficult to view the disposition of the instant shares as having failed to obtain a resolution or consent from the C&C council.

Examining the record in light of the relevant legal principles, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the resolution or consent of the local council on the disposal of public property, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

C. As to the ground of appeal No. 3, the lower court, on the grounds stated in its reasoning, determined that the computation of the estimated price for the sale of the instant shares was unlawful.

Examining the record in light of the relevant legal principles, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the method of calculating the price of unlisted stocks, which are public property, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, thereby exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence.

As to the ground of appeal No. 4, the lower court is so serious that the degree of defect in the stock sales contract of this case is so serious that it would prejudice the public nature and fairness of the procedure.