1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant shall be revoked, and all the plaintiffs' claims corresponding to the revoked part shall be revoked.

1. The plaintiff C's error, the plaintiff Eul's husband, the plaintiff Eul's partner, the plaintiff Eul's partner, the plaintiff Eul's partner, and the plaintiff Eul's partner.

Plaintiff

A, from July 20, 2007 to January 10, 2008, upon the recommendation of G where the Defendant’s F Branch Employees, invested the investment trust products that the Defendant sells directly or on behalf of the rest of the Plaintiffs (hereinafter “each of the instant funds”).

As losses were incurred to the investment principal of each of the instant funds, Plaintiff A redeemed all of the instant funds directly or on behalf of the rest of the Plaintiffs from September 4, 2007 to November 6, 2008.

【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, the purport of whole pleading

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The summary of the parties' assertion 1) Although each of the funds of this case is a product with high risk of incurring excessive actual loss and is not suitable for the plaintiffs merely an individual investor, G actively recommended investment in each of the funds of this case. In addition, at the time of soliciting investment in each of the funds of this case, G did not deliver an investment prospectus to the plaintiff A, which is the actual investor of each of the funds of this case, and did not sufficiently explain the risk above. Since the plaintiffs suffered losses due to the tort committed by the violation of the duty to protect investors by the employees of this case, the defendant was obligated to compensate for the damages suffered by the plaintiffs as the user of G ( claim 60% of the amount of damages). 2) The defendant G recommended each of the funds of this case in consideration of the plaintiff's purpose, investment experience, financial standing, etc., and the risk of each of the funds of this case was well known to the plaintiff A as well as the plaintiff's own own.

Therefore, G cannot be deemed to have violated the obligation to protect investors.

In addition, on November 6, 2008, the final redemption date of each of the instant funds.