2. The plaintiffs.

A. A (hereinafter “A”) around June 12, 2009: (a) around June 12, 2009; (b) around November 6, 2009; (c) around the third bearer interest coupon bonds; and (d) around June 17, 2010, around the fourth bearer interest coupon bonds, the Plaintiffs purchased each subordinated bond.

B. In classifying the asset soundness of loans, Article 2-2(1)3 of the former Mutual Savings Banks Act (amended by Act No. 10175, Mar. 22, 2010); Article 11-3(3)3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act; Article 36(2) and Article 38 of the Regulations on Supervision of Business of Mutual Savings Banks; Article 20 of the Enforcement Rule of the Regulations on Supervision of Mutual Savings Bank Business (amended by Act No. 10175, Mar. 2, 2010); and Article 20 of the Enforcement Rule of the Regulations on Supervision of Mutual Savings Bank Business (amended by Act No. 10175, Mar. 22, 2010) provides that, according to the above classification criteria, A shall be in accordance with the asset soundness classification standards of the borrower’s total claims, “normal”, “the principle”, “the recall letter,”

However, in preparing and publicly announcing the financial statements of the 26th period (from July 1, 2008 to June 30, 2009), A made a false statement of profit and loss, as if the net income of KRW 20.3 billion was realized in the name of KRW 20.3 billion, A made a false statement of profit and loss, and made a false statement of profit and loss, as if the total assets of the same period were to be 3.3 billion, as if the total assets of KRW 3.3 billion were to be 3.3 billion, and prepared and publicly announced a false statement of profit and loss, 2.7 billion won (from July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2009) and the balance of credit to be classified into “normal”, “presumed loss”, “in fact,” etc., and 3.3 billion won in the net income of KRW 20.37 billion in the name of the 201.3 billion in the same way.