All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A. The lower court rejected the Plaintiffs’ assertion that the Defendant’s refusal to renew a commissioning contract constitutes an unfair dismissal on the premise that the Plaintiffs’ submission of a resignation certificate due to forced conduct by the Defendant and the submission of a resignation certificate with the Defendant and that there was insufficient evidence to support the conclusion of a contract with the Defendant for appointment of directors.

B. The ground of appeal disputing the judgment of the court below is nothing more than the purport of dispute over the selection of evidence and fact-finding which belong to the exclusive jurisdiction of the court below.

Furthermore, even if examining the judgment of the court below in light of the record, there was no error of finding facts beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of the principle of logic and experience, or of misapprehending the legal principles on the dismissal

2. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3

A. The court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the refusal to renew the final commission contract constitutes unfair dismissal on the ground that it is difficult to view that the plaintiffs have a legitimate expectation right to renew the commission contract for directors, and even if such expectation right is acknowledged, the defendant's refusal to renew the contract against the plaintiffs was reasonable.

B. The ground of appeal disputing this part of the judgment of the court below is nothing more than the purport of dispute over the selection of evidence and fact-finding which belong to the judgment of the court below.

Furthermore, even if examining the judgment of the court below in light of the records, it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the legitimate reasons for refusing renewal or renewal, contrary to the principle of logic and experience.

3. Regarding ground of appeal No. 4

(a) judgment;