1. Appeal against the Plaintiff of Defendant H Co., Ltd. and appeal against Defendant J, M, L, K Accounting Corporation, N andO against Plaintiff A, B and C.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation of this case is the same as that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except as stated in paragraph (2). Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(In view of the allegations and evidence added in the trial, the findings of fact and judgments of the first instance court shall not be different. 2. The part concerning the appeal of the second instance court shall be modified as follows: (a) No. 10, 11 of the first instance court rulings.

4) The Plaintiffs purchased the shares of the Defendant Company on the KOSDAQ market as shown in the attached Form 2 List of Damages (the “date” in the attached Form 2 List is not the date of actual sale of shares but the securities company’s business process following the sale. The Plaintiffs purchased all shares on September 6, 201 before the suspension of share purchase and sale.

A. Article 162(3) of the former Capital Markets Act provides that “The amount of compensation to be paid pursuant to Article 170(1) of the former Capital Markets Act and Article 170(2) of the former External Audit Act shall be the amount actually paid by each claimant for damage, and the amount of compensation to be paid as prescribed by Article 170(1) of the former Capital Markets Act and Article 170(2) of the former External Audit Act shall be presumed to be the difference between the disposal price and the market price or estimated disposal price at the time of the closing of argument if the securities were not disposed of before the closing of argument, and the difference between the disposal price and the estimated disposal price at the time of the closing of argument, if the securities were not disposed of before the closing of argument (= ②).” Article 162(3) of the former Capital Markets Act provides that “The amount of compensation to be paid pursuant to Article 170(1) of the former Capital Markets Act shall be revised as follows.”

Rather, according to the aforementioned evidence, the share price of the Defendant Company appears to have continuously fallen after the date of resumption of transaction, and records KRW 7,000 on July 25, 2012, and up to KRW 8,050 on July 26, 2012.