1. Defendant D’s KRW 39,658,70 to Plaintiff A, KRW 45,952,420 to Plaintiff B, and KRW 29,91,950 to Plaintiff C and each of the said money.

1. Determination as to the claim against Defendant D

(a) Indication of claims: A description of the grounds for claims and the grounds for the modification thereof; and

(b) Judgment based on the recommendation of confession (Article 208 (3) 2 and Article 150 (3) of the Civil Procedure Act);

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant E

A. The facts of recognition (1) Defendant D is an employee of Defendant E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant bank”) who worked as a site store at the south-dong branch of the said bank from July 13, 2012 to April 8, 2016.

(2) Defendant D received KRW 80 million from Plaintiff A in cash from Plaintiff B, and Plaintiff B, and C respectively, and deposited into the securities account in the Defendant’s name under the name of the Defendant, under the pretext of asking for harming stock investment from March 20, 2015 to April 3, 2016, and held and managed shares (hereinafter “instant shares”) after purchasing them from the said securities account (hereinafter “instant shares”).

(3) Defendant D, other than the Plaintiffs, embezzled money received from F as the name of transfer from F at will by using it as a stock investment, and acquired money for a name of stock investment by deceivingG,” following the commencement of an investigation by Defendant Bank around April 4, 2016, the same month.

5. A significant portion of the stock sales price (hereinafter “the sales price of this case”) out of the shares held including the shares in this case was sold, and part of the sales price of the shares was repaid with H’s damage, and the remainder was deposited into the Defendant bank account (hereinafter “the deposit money of this case”). The deposit of this case was paid with the amount of damage repayment, such as I, J, and K.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 15, Eul evidence 1 to 5 (including branch numbers for those with serial numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

B. The plaintiffs asserted that ① L, who was in charge of the accident inspection of Defendant Bank, forced Defendant D to sell the shares of this case after becoming aware of the occurrence of the accident of this case, and the above L.