1. The defendant's appeal is all dismissed.

2. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

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

1. Evidence 【Evidence 1, 2, 13, 18, Eul evidence 9, Eul evidence 13-1, Eul evidence 17, and the purport of the whole pleadings;

A. On June 25, 2010, C Accounting Corporation changed its trade name from the Securities and Futures Commission to “Co., Ltd. E” on February 24, 2009, but changed its trade name as at June 24, 2010 again, but was designated as an auditor of D regardless of the change of trade name; hereinafter “D”). A certified public accountant who is a director in charge of Plaintiff A and Plaintiff B as the general certified public accountant from February 14, 201 to December 17, 201, and audited D’s financial statements from February 44 (from January 1, 2010 to December 31 of the same year).

(hereinafter “instant audit”). (b)

The Securities and Futures Commission, even though D did not have entered into a conditional transfer contract with Law Firm F (hereinafter “Escro”), has falsely counted the amount of KRW 1 billion from 2009 to the end of 2011 as if the financial statements had been held in advance. While conducting the instant audit, the Plaintiffs did not seal D’s seal impression on the Scro contract while paying fees to the attorney-at-law of Law Firm F (hereinafter “G”), which is the storage of Dscro contract, without having affixed the seal impression on the Scro contract. The Plaintiffs discovered that the amount of KRW 1.1 billion which was settled in advance is different from that of the storage under the contract, which was processed in advance, and that the deposit amount was found to have been processed in advance, and that there was no inquiry about Scro to verify the validity or effectiveness of the contract, etc., and thus neglecting the audit procedure based on Article 15(1)4 of the former External Audit Act (amended by Act No. 11582, Dec. 13, 2011>