1. All of the instant lawsuits are dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit include the part resulting from the supplementary participation.

1. Article 376(1) of the Commercial Act on the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit is limited to the shareholders, directors, or auditors of the relevant company who can file a lawsuit for cancellation of the resolution of the general meeting of shareholders.

On the other hand, the Commercial Act does not impose any limitation on the person who has interest in confirmation as the absence of a resolution of the general meeting of shareholders or the lawsuit for confirmation of nullity is standing to sue. However, as long as the right or legal status is not infringed specifically and directly by a resolution of the general meeting of shareholders, in addition to the shareholders, directors, and auditors of the relevant company, a lawsuit for revocation of the resolution of the general meeting of shareholders can be brought pursuant to Article 376(1) of the Commercial Act, there is

The data submitted by the plaintiffs alone are insufficient to recognize that the plaintiffs were in the status of shareholders, directors, or auditors of the defendant company. Rather, considering the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 43 and Eul evidence Nos. 72 and 84, the plaintiffs and I filed the lawsuit in this case with the plaintiffs, and they were withdrawn on July 5, 2014. On January 28, 2013, the plaintiffs and I added the aforementioned preliminary claim against the defendant company as to "the plaintiffs and I confirmed that they are shareholders of the defendant company, and the plaintiffs and I added the aforementioned preliminary claim to the appellate court. The plaintiffs and I sought the implementation of the transfer procedure in the name of the plaintiffs and I to the defendant company." In this appellate court, the plaintiffs and I expressed their intent to acquire shares under the above M& 3's own name (the plaintiff Gap received shares under the above J. 12, 2013, and the plaintiff Gap acquired shares under the name of the defendant company as to the above M& 23, 2016.