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 of the court’s explanation concerning the instant case is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance (excluding the part pertaining to the judgment of the first instance) in addition to revising the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance as stated in the following 2. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2.The following shall be added to the 7th day below the correction (see, e.g., judgment). Furthermore, in the administrative litigation claiming the invalidity of an administrative disposition as a matter of course and seeking the invalidity thereof, the plaintiff is liable to assert and prove the grounds for the invalidity of the administrative disposition.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Du3460 Decided May 13, 2010). 6th seven (See Supreme Court Decision 2009Du3460 Decided May 13, 201) add the following contents:

【In addition, the shareholder registry is presumed to be a shareholder of the company and the company bears the burden of proving the denial of the shareholder’s rights (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2007Da51505, Mar. 11, 2010). Barring special circumstances, a person lawfully recorded in the shareholder registry may exercise shareholder’s rights, such as voting rights, in relation to the company. A company may not deny the exercise of shareholder’s rights by a shareholder on the shareholder registry, regardless of whether he/she was aware of the existence of a separate person who has taken over or attempted to take over the shares other than a shareholder on the shareholder registry, and may not recognize the exercise of shareholder’s rights by a person who has not completed the registration on the shareholder registry (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Da248342, Mar. 23, 2017).

6 The parties are not only difficult to see the last 6th place of conduct, but also the parties.