Among plaintiffs among them, AI, AK, AL, AM, N, AO, AP, AP, AS, AS, AU, AV, AX, AY, AZ, BB, BC, BD, BD, BP, Q, BS, BU.

1. As to Defendant G Accounting Corporation’s ground of appeal

A. Examining the reasoning of the first instance judgment cited by the lower court in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court’s determination that the causal relationship between Defendant G Accounting Corporation’s act and the damages of the Plaintiffs indicated in the “List of Second Person’s Amount” (hereinafter “Plaintiff BF, etc.”) of the lower judgment on the grounds stated in its reasoning is reasonable and acceptable. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules,

B. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, the lower court determined that the Defendants jointly and severally liable for damages to Plaintiff BF, etc. on the grounds set forth in its reasoning, and rejected the Defendants’ assertion that the liability should be more limited than the other Defendants on the ground that the scope of joint tort liability cannot be limited as part of the amount of damages due to the minor degree of processing of the tort. In so doing, the lower court limited the Defendants’ liability to 20% of the amount of damages suffered by Plaintiff BF, etc. in consideration of the

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the relevant legal principles and records, although some of the reasoning of the judgment below is not appropriate, the court below's decision that partially accepted the claim against Defendant G Accounting Corporation by Plaintiff BF, etc. is just, and it affected the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal principles on limitation of liability.