1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning the instant case is as follows, and the reasoning for the judgment of the court of the first instance is the same as that for the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

2. The dismissal part of the judgment of the first instance court 9Da5, the Plaintiff A’s “G” in the fifth part of the judgment of the first instance court referring to “G”.

3. The addition;

(a)in the first head of Hobbebbeb, the 10th judgment of the first instance court, add:

In addition, according to the witness H’s testimony, H, who was in charge of each of the fund affairs of this case due to G, at the discretion of G, provides that the first early repayment date of the Fund No. 1 arrives on March 2008, and that the Fund No. 1 was unable to be repaid early due to the failure of the Plaintiff to satisfy the NN index and the OSP index conditions. In this case, Plaintiff A did not raise any objection even after hearing the explanation about the NN index from H, and the fact that Plaintiff A did not raise any specific objection even when receiving the maturity of the Fund No. 1 on September 7, 2009, with the maturity of the Fund No. 209.

Considering such circumstances, it is ratified that Plaintiff A had been aware of the fact that each of the funds of this case is linked to the Nice Index at the time of subscribing to each of the funds of this case.

B. From the 11st bottom of the judgment of the first instance, the term “51 years of age” and “overage” as the representative director of a small and medium construction company are added.

(c) Subsequent to the 12th judgment of the first instance, the following paragraphs shall be added:

④ According to the evidence Nos. 10-1 through 4, even before joining each of the funds of this case, the plaintiff A had experience in joining the goods with the risk of principal loss even prior to joining each of the funds of this case, and is at risk of principal loss on October 18, 2006, government bonds and public bonds MF1 goods, specific money trust goods on July 16, 2007, and each of the funds of this case after the date of joining each of the funds of this case.