1. All appeals by the plaintiffs (appointed parties) are dismissed.

2. The plaintiff (Appointed Party) added at the trial.

1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: "Nos. 9, 11, 13, 15-2, 17-1, 19-2, 19-3, 21-1, 25-1, 27-2, 3, 4, 33-1, 33-1, 41-1, 41-2, and 41 in the court of first instance, and 3, 4, 15-2, 17-1, 19-2, 19-2, 19-3, 25-1, 25-1, 27-2, 27-2, 27-1, 3, 33-1, and 41-1, 3, and 4, which are added at the court of first instance, are as stated in the reasoning of the court of first instance.

2. Determination as to the claim for confirmation added in the trial room

A. The Plaintiffs asserted that the Defendants’ act of the Defendants, which did not distribute to the network P, should be confirmed as a joint tort by forging or altering various documents, such as a copy of the protocol, etc. of the land distributed to the network P by the 3 South and North Korea, should be confirmed as a joint tort.

ex officio, the subject of confirmation in the litigation for confirmation must be the current rights or legal relations in principle, and the interest in confirmation should be removed from the uncertainty or disadvantage of the plaintiff by obtaining confirmation in relation to the defendant.

Not only includes confirmation of past facts, but also cannot be deemed as the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate the current anxiety and danger in the rights or legal status of the plaintiffs, and thus there is no benefit in confirmation.

The plaintiffs' claims for this part are unlawful.

B. The Plaintiffs claiming confirmation of the existence of liability for damages caused by a joint tort claim asserted that the net P caused damage to the lost P due to such joint tort, which caused not to inherit or distribute the net M’s property, and seek confirmation of the existence of liability for damages caused by a joint tort against the Defendants.

ex officio, I think that the plaintiffs claim.