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. Even if the allegations by the parties concerned and the evidence submitted in the first instance court and the first instance court are closely examined, it does not seem that there was any error in the findings and judgment of the first instance court.

Therefore, the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows, since the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance are the same as the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the cases where the part of the judgment of the court of first instance is cited or added.

2. The 3 pages 6 of the first instance judgment of the court of first instance, written or added, "2015da9801" shall be added to "2015Gahap9801".

The following shall be added between six and seven pages of the judgment of the first instance.

The plaintiffs asserted that, “On the other hand, the plaintiffs paid management expenses up to January 2015 to I Co., Ltd. entrusted with the management of the commercial building in this case by F until December 23, 2016, which was issued by F to revoke the resolution of the appointment of F, and thus, it is valid for the plaintiffs to pay them up to the part of January 14, 2015. Even if the plaintiffs trusted the appearance of F manager and paid management expenses to I Co., Ltd, it should be recognized as a legitimate act of payment by applying the doctrine of express representation under Articles 125 through 129 of the Civil Act and the provision of Article 395 of the Commercial Act to the express representative director under Article 125 through 129 of the Commercial Act. On the other hand, if the judgment of revoking the resolution of the general meeting of shareholders of the appointment of directors becomes final and conclusive, the representative director selected by the board of directors by the resolution becomes retroactively disqualified, and such legal principle is invalid unless it becomes final and conclusive prior to the revocation judgment on the representative director’s resolution (see Supreme Court Decision 20027Da2727.