2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Plaintiff

On May 4, 2015, A entered into an underwriting contract with the Defendant on behalf of the deceased F (Death on October 20, 2018), the rest of the Plaintiffs other than Plaintiff A (hereinafter “the rest of the Plaintiffs and the network F (hereinafter “parties A”) on behalf of the Defendant, with respect to the share-linked securities based on the underlying asset of G and H common shares (hereinafter “instant ES”).

The main contents of the instant ESS underwriting agreement are as shown in attached Table 1.

After that, the terms and conditions of the automatic early repayment under Article 2.14 (1) of the Agreement, and Article 2.14 (2) 1 and Article 2.14 (2) 2. (i) of the Agreement did not meet the profit-generating terms and conditions. As of the date of maturity redemption evaluation, H ordinary share price fell below 5% of the initial base price, resulting in losses pursuant to Article 2.14. 2. (2) (ii). Accordingly, the Defendant paid to the account holder the amount indicated in the column of “ full-term repayment” as stated below, calculated on the basis of the formula of “amount of face 】 (determined price ± ± initial base price) ? 14. 20, 200, 207. 70, 208, 307, 209, 307, 2057, 209, 307, 2007, 2057, 2008, 20057, 2007

(2) The Defendant asserted the purport of the entire argument by the Plaintiffs as to the purport of the entire argument by soliciting the conclusion of the instant contract to underwrite the instant ES, a product of high risk group, even though the Plaintiff A, representing the nominal owner, was older than 77 years old.

In violation of the suitability principle, there was no explanation on the possibility of principal loss, possibility of redemption, and the consent of the defendant at the time of the request for redemption.

The defendant raised objection against the plaintiffs.