1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. All plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

3. The plaintiffs' total costs of litigation.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Plaintiff A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) is a financial investment company that runs a collective investment business with authorization from the Financial Services Commission, and Plaintiff B is a person who served as the representative director of the Plaintiff Company from September 13, 2012 to September 13, 2018.

B. On January 31, 2018, the Defendant Financial Services Commission issued a disciplinary warning (hereinafter “instant disciplinary warning disposition”) pursuant to Article 422(1)3 of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act on the ground that the Plaintiff Company, as the representative director of the Plaintiff Company, was engaged in the brokerage of securities through subscription for public offering on another person’s account without obtaining authorization from the Financial Services Commission, on the ground that the Plaintiff Company engaged in the brokerage of securities on another person’s account without obtaining authorization from the Financial Services Commission (hereinafter “Capital Markets Act”), and made an offer at issue in the instant disposition (hereinafter “instant public offering offer”).

1. B measures taken against executives and employees: Disciplinary warning;

2. Grounds for measures;

A. According to Article 11 of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, a person is prohibited from running an investment brokerage business without obtaining authorization from the Financial Services Commission, but the Plaintiff Company entered into a prior agreement with D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) to sell all or part of the subscription price offered by participating in the forecast of demand for corporate disclosure in its own name or in the name of “C” it manages without obtaining authorization from the Financial Services Commission (hereinafter “the Fund”), and then, during the period from January 7, 2013 to March 16, 2015, by selling the subscription price acquired by participating in the forecast of demand for corporate disclosure to D, etc. total of 163 days during the period from March 7, 2013 to March 16, 2015, the Plaintiff Company was engaging in the business of mediating securities through the subscription for corporate disclosure on another person’s account.

(c) the defendant.