1. All of the plaintiffs' lawsuits of this case are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Determination as to the legitimacy of the plaintiffs' lawsuit of this case

A. Although the plaintiff's assertion was dismissed from the representative director, the defendant still contests that he was registered as the representative director on the entire certificate of registered matters of corporation E, which was held on March 30, 2012, and the defendant was dismissed from the representative director by the board of directors held on March 30, 2012, and since the above resolution of the board of directors was ratified on April 15, 2012 at the general meeting of shareholders held on April 15, 2012, the defendant was legally dismissed from the representative director of corporation E, and the lawsuit of this case against the defendant has a benefit of confirmation.

B. The judgment ex officio requires a benefit of confirmation as a requirement for the protection of rights in a lawsuit for confirmation, and the benefit of confirmation is recognized only when it is the most effective and appropriate means to obtain a judgment against the defendant in order to eliminate the risks of the plaintiff's rights or legal status and to eliminate the risks of anxiety (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da14420, Dec. 10, 1991). If there is a dispute over the existence of the representative director's status, the judgment against the company can eliminate the risks or apprehensions associated with the plaintiff's rights or legal status by obtaining a confirmation judgment on the existence of the representative director's status against the company. The judgment against the company, such as the representative director or the shareholder, cannot be deemed an effective and appropriate means to eliminate the plaintiff's rights or legal status because it does not affect the company, and thus, there is no benefit of confirmation.

(See Supreme Court Decision 90Da14058 delivered on June 25, 1991, and Supreme Court Decision 96Da6295 delivered on April 12, 1996, etc.). In light of the above legal principles, this case is related.