All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles as to the burden of explanation and violation of the duty to explain, the lower court acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning by comprehensively taking account of the adopted evidence, and bears the duty to explain regarding the FXM

Even if the FXM trading was done, it violated the duty to explain the contents and risks of the FXM trading, the duty to notify and explain the Vast agents.

The court determined that it was difficult to view that the plaintiffs suffered damages due to the violation of the duty of explanation.

In light of the records, the judgment below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the duty

2. As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal principle as to the violation of the duty of care when the opposite trade was conducted, the lower court determined that it is difficult for the Defendant to recognize the violation of the duty of due care as a good manager when implementing the opposite trade

In light of the records, the judgment of the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors in misapprehension of legal principles.

3. 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.