1. The plaintiffs' appeals against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is to delete the judgment on claims excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court, and to write down the judgment of the court of first instance as follows, "decision on the claim for confirmation of director status" in Article 3-3(c) and "decision on the claim for confirmation of director status" in Article 4-2(b) of the Civil Procedure Act, except for adding the following explanation to "decision on the claim for confirmation of director status", and therefore, it is to accept it pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the

- The main issue of the instant case is whether the acquisition of shares is forged or not, and in light of the circumstances described in Article 4-1(a) of the first instance judgment, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiffs alone is insufficient to recognize that Defendant E has forged the said acquisition agreement without the authority to prepare the said agreement.

2. A part which is written or additionally stated;

A. Paragraph 3(c) of Article 3, first of all, we examine the existence of interest in confirmation as to the claim for confirmation of director status.

In full view of each of the statements in Evidence Nos. 2, 8, and 18 and 39, as a whole, the fact that Plaintiff A and B were registered as a director of the Defendant Company upon the Plaintiff’s request and did not actually exercise the authority as a director, such as being aware of the circumstances of the Defendant Company or participating in its management. However, as long as they were registered after being elected as director on the basis of the intent of shareholders, it cannot be deemed that there was no legal authority and responsibility as a director inside and outside the country. Thus, as long as the company was registered after being elected as director on the basis of the intent of shareholders, the benefit of confirmation is recognized so long as the Defendant Company claims that the resignation of director was forged and lost its legal status as

Next, with respect to the assertion that the resignation registration was made by forgery of the resignation certificate against the plaintiff A and B's will, that is, the resignation certificate regardless of his will, the health unit, the resignation letter of No. 17-6 to No. 9, respectively.