1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part of the lawsuit against the Plaintiffs against the DefendantO and the part against the Plaintiffs A, F, G, I, K, and L’s Nchip.

1. Determination as to whether a part of the instant lawsuit is lawful

A. The Plaintiffs asserted that the part of the lawsuit against Defendant O is lawful and that they are members of Defendant NL (hereinafter “Defendant NL”) and sought confirmation of their membership against Defendant O, the representative of Defendant NLL.

In a lawsuit for confirmation, the benefit of confirmation must be recognized as a requirement for protection of rights. The benefit of confirmation must be recognized only when there is currently unstable or dangerous in the rights or legal status of the plaintiffs, and the removal thereof is the most effective and appropriate means to obtain a judgment against the defendant. Thus, the defendant of the lawsuit for confirmation must be a person who is likely to cause unstable or dangerous in the legal status of the plaintiffs by dispute over the rights or legal relations of the plaintiffs, and there is a benefit of confirmation against such defendant.

(See Supreme Court Decision 96Da11747 delivered on October 16, 1997). In this case, the plaintiffs can eliminate anxietys and risks in relation to their membership status by receiving a confirmation judgment against the defendant's paper council. Even if the defendantO is the representative of the defendant paper council, it does not lead to apprehensions and risks in the plaintiffs' membership status, and even if the defendantO is the representative of the defendant paper council, it does not lead to an apprehensions and risks in the plaintiffs' membership status, and even if the above defendant is confirmed against the defendant, it cannot be recognized as the plaintiffs' membership status in relation to the defendant paper council, and therefore, the above defendant does not have standing as to the plaintiffs' lawsuit in this case or has no interest in confirmation against the above defendant.

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case against the plaintiffs' defendantO is unlawful.

B. As seen earlier, the benefit of confirmation is currently unstable and dangerous in the rights or legal status of the Plaintiffs A, F, G, I, K, and L as seen earlier.