1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against Plaintiff A and Plaintiff B, including a claim added by the first instance court prior to remand.

After remanding, the first instance court partly accepted the Plaintiffs’ claim against the Defendant Jinjin Asset Management Co., Ltd. (Seoul Asset Management Co., Ltd. on December 26, 2007 to change their current trade name from “Seoul Asset Management Co., Ltd.” on December 26, 2007; hereinafter “Defendant Jinjin Asset Management”) against the Defendants on the grounds that the Plaintiffs violated the duty to explain and the duty to protect investors, etc., and dismissed the Plaintiffs’ claim against the Defendant Kin Korean Investment Securities Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Korea Exchange Securities Co., Ltd.”) on September 4, 2012.

After the Plaintiffs and Defendant Jinjin Asset Management filed an appeal against the judgment of the first instance, respectively, the Plaintiffs added the claim for the agreed amount, and Plaintiff B withdrawn the appeal against the Defendant Han Jin Asset Management, and Defendant Jinjin Asset Management applied for the return of provisional payment against the Plaintiffs.

Before remanding, the first instance court partly accepted the part concerning the claim for damages among the appeals against the Defendant Hanjin Investment Securities by Plaintiff A, and dismissed the appeal for Defendant Jinjin Asset Management and the appeal for Defendant Jinjin Asset Management and the application for return of provisional payments.

The Plaintiffs and the Defendants appealed against the judgment of the party prior to remand. The appellate court reversed the part against the Defendants in the judgment prior to remand, and dismissed all the Plaintiffs’ appeals.

Therefore, among the judgment of the party prior to remand, the part against the plaintiffs against the defendants was separated and finalized.

Therefore, the object of the trial after the remand is limited to the above reversed and remanded part, i.e., the part against the Defendants.

The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or are described in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, Eul evidence Nos. 3, 4, 6 through 9, 16 through 20, 29, 31, 39 (Evidence No. 29 of Eul and Evidence No. 16 of Eul and Evidence No. 31 of Eul are the same as Evidence No. 13 of Eul), Eul No. 2, 3, and 19, respectively: