The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

Based on its reasoning, the lower court determined that the Defendants cannot seek compensation for the remaining damages against the Defendants, regardless of the underwriter’s choice, on the following grounds: (a) the Defendants’ statement and guarantee made against the underwriter and/or A Bank (hereinafter “A Bank”) are different from the facts; (b) the Defendants are merely liable to compensate the entire amount of damages to A Bank; or (c) the underwriters are liable to compensate for the amount equivalent to the underwriter’s share in the damages out of A Bank; and (b) the e-mail financing system succeeded to the underwriter’s contractual status has already been filed against the Defendants in another lawsuit; and (c) once the judgment ordering the Defendants to compensate for the amount equivalent to the underwriter’s share in the damages directly against the Defendants in another lawsuit, the lower court determined that the A Bank cannot further seek compensation for the remaining damages against the Defendants, inasmuch as the judgment ordering the Defendants to compensate for the damages is final and conclusive.

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

In doing so, there is no error of misapprehending the legal principles on the interpretation of damages and disposal documents, or exceeding the bounds of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.