1. The Plaintiff’s appeal against Defendant C and the appeal against Defendant D Co., Ltd are all dismissed.

2. The appeal costs.

1. Based on the litigation materials and arguments submitted to the appellate court citing the judgment of the court of first instance, the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance (such as the law, precedents, interpretation and application of legal principles, recognition of facts and facts requiring proof, and judgment on issues) are sufficiently reasonable.

The reasoning of this Court concerning this case is as follows, since the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, this Court cites it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of

(However, the part regarding the co-defendant B of the first instance trial, which has been separated, 2. Dried or added, 3 to 8, 3. Sheeted or added, shall be as follows:

A. Defendant D Co., Ltd (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) is a stock company with the purpose of investment advisory business (asset consulting), securities and futures brokerage business, and other financial support services. Co-Defendant B (hereinafter “B”) of the first instance trial is a co-representative of the Defendant Co-Defendant Co-Defendant B (hereinafter “Co-Defendant B”) who was an internal director of the Defendant Co-Defendant Co-Defendant Company from March 31, 201 to July 14, 201. Defendant C is a person who was married with B on August 31, 207, but was divorced on May 7, 2014.

Defendant B shall be put into “B” in Part 9 of the third side.

Part 4 of the 2nd “each entry” shall be added to the following “(including a number; hereinafter the same shall apply)”:

Until the 5th page 1 through 3, "B was registered as an in-house director of the defendant company from March 31, 2010 to July 14, 201."

Part 5. The following shall be added to Part 13:

The defendant company asserts that the defendant company does not bear employer's responsibility because the plaintiff knew or could have known that the plaintiff's act of receiving investment money from the plaintiff does not constitute the execution of the defendant company's business.