All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the judgment of the court of first instance and the reasoning of the judgment which the court below partially accepted as to the grounds of appeal on Defendant V-accounting firms, the court below convicted of the facts constituting a crime that W directors conspired to increase the ratio of BISD equity capital by classifying them as false and accumulating the asset soundness of loan claims, thereby falsely preparing WW’s 26 period and 27 financial statements, and the Securities and Futures Commission conducted investigation and supervision on W’s 26 period and 27 half-year business report, audit report, etc., and decided that W’s warning measures against W was taken, but in full view of the circumstances as stated in its reasoning, the court below violated the audit procedure by only the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs and the above-mentioned facts alone.

It is insufficient to recognize that the Securities and Futures Commission neglected to perform its duty of care in the course of audit and inspection, and even if the Securities and Futures Commission was negligent in paying the bad debt allowances pointed out, in light of the circumstances stated in its holding, it is difficult to conclude that there is a proximate causal link between the insufficient appropriation of the bad debt allowances pointed out by the Securities and Futures Commission and the losses of the Plaintiffs on the ground that it is difficult to conclude that the result of under-appropriating the bad debt allowances pointed out by the Securities and Futures Commission had influenced the Plaintiffs in making

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, causation in liability for damages, or omission