All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment as to the first ground of appeal, the lower court acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning based on the adopted evidence, and determined that each of the instant agreements could not be admitted as evidence, on the ground that there was no other evidence to acknowledge the authenticity of each of the instant agreements, since it is doubtful whether the seal of each of the instant agreements was affixed according to the Defendant D representative director K’s genuine intent.

In light of the records, the above determination by the court below is just, and there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the formation of documents.

2. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, according to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court determined that it is insufficient to recognize that Defendant D ratified ratified each of the instant agreements on behalf of Defendant D with the sole evidence submitted by the Plaintiffs. ② there is no evidence to acknowledge that Defendant D granted certain power of representation to H, and it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiffs had justifiable grounds to believe that D had the authority to conclude each of the instant agreements on behalf of Defendant D, and ③ the representative director of Defendant D, K and Plaintiff, etc. discussed about the resolution of disputes arising from each of the instant agreements around May 10, 2012, solely based on the fact that: (a) the evidence submitted by the Plaintiffs was insufficient to recognize that Defendant D ratified ratified each of the instant agreements.

In light of the records, the above determination by the court below is just, and there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, by misapprehending the legal principles regarding the granting of power of representation, the establishment of expressions, and the ratification of unauthorized representation, or by failing to exhaust

3. As to the third ground for appeal, the lower judgment.