All appeals are dismissed.

Of the costs of appeal, the plaintiffs and defendant D Co., Ltd., Ltd., the lawsuit taking over the lawsuit.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. (1) On the grounds of appeal No. 1, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, determined that each of the above contracts is null and void as an act of unauthorized representation, unless there is evidence to acknowledge that M entered into each contract with Defendant E Co., Ltd. under the name of Defendant E Co., Ltd., and was individually and specifically delegated, separately from the comprehensive delegation of the representative director’s authority

Examining the record in accordance with the relevant legal principles, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable.

In other words, there was no error by misapprehending the legal nature of delegation of management rights, by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the validity of delegation of rights, by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, or by omitting judgment.

(2) As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 2, 3, and 4, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, determined that it is difficult to recognize that there exists a loan claim and a rent claim claimed by the Plaintiffs, and even if such claim exists, Defendant E Company cannot be deemed to bear an equivalent obligation to return unjust enrichment against the Plaintiffs.

Examining the record, the above determination by the court below is justifiable.

In doing so, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the validity of a performance acceptance contract, requirements for establishing a claim for return of unjust enrichment, interpretation of a legal act, etc., or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules

2. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant D (hereinafter “Defendant D”), Defendant D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant D”), the lower court rejected Defendant D’s right of retention on the grounds of its stated reasoning.

Examining the record in accordance with the relevant legal principles, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable.

In this regard, the possessor in the possession of the corporation.