1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning the instant case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the following parts, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The 4th to 9th of the judgment of the first instance court shall be completed in the following manner.

However, it is not sufficient to recognize that the descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 3, 4, 7, and 9 are fully performed by January 9, 2015, which are indicated in the execution clause of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Rather, as seen earlier, at least until July 3, 2015, it is determined that the Plaintiffs failed to perform all of the duty to inspect and copy according to the instant indirect compulsory performance decision.

Furthermore, the plaintiffs asserted that the failure of the above obligation to peruse and copy was caused by a cause not attributable to the plaintiffs. However, in a lawsuit of demurrer against the grant of execution clause of Seoul Southern District Court 2015Gahap2875, the plaintiffs submitted on July 3, 2015 and the minutes of the regular and temporary general shareholders' meeting submitted on July 3, 2015, there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiffs failed to perform their obligation to peruse and copy on the grounds that

B. In addition, even if the plaintiffs fulfilled most of the duty of inspection and delivery stipulated in the decision of indirect compulsory performance of this case and perform some of the duty of inspection and delivery, the plaintiffs asserted that compulsory execution based on the execution clause granted to the decision of indirect compulsory performance of this case cannot be allowed because it constitutes abuse of rights even though the defendant sufficiently achieved the purpose of obtaining the decision of indirect compulsory performance of this case. However, even if the plaintiffs were to exclude the part of performing the duty of indirect compulsory performance of inspection and delivery, there is no evidence that the defendant sufficiently achieved the purpose of obtaining the order