All appeals are dismissed.

Costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal and the Defendants’ ground of appeal No. 4, the lower court limited the scope of the Defendants’ liability to 70% of the Plaintiff’s damages.

Examining the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on offsetting negligence, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. As to the Defendants’ grounds of appeal

A. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court determined as follows: (a) business activities of Company B (hereinafter “B”) against Japanese investors, including the Plaintiff, constituted an act of receiving without delay prohibited by law.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal principles as to liability for damages caused by the act of fund-raising without delay, or by misapprehending the facts

B. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, the lower court determined that Defendant E, G, and F are jointly and severally liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages equivalent to each of the instant loans, as the director or auditor of the Plaintiff.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal principles as to liability for damages caused by breach of duties of directors and auditors, or by misapprehending the facts against the rules of evidence.

C. As to the ground of appeal No. 3, the lower court determined that the interest on the loan of February 21, 2005 was not deducted from the amount of damages of this case on the grounds as stated in its reasoning.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on offsetting profits and losses or by misapprehending the facts against the rules of evidence.

The grounds of appeal No. 5 on the expiration of extinctive prescription are raised in the final appeal.