1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiffs falling under the following order of payment shall be revoked.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation as to this case is as follows: (a) the Defendants' liability for damages is limited to section 38, section 16, section 10, section 38, section 38, section 16, and section 40, section 10 of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (b) other than the newly used section 2, it is identical to the Plaintiffs' corresponding part as to the Defendants.

2. Parts to be dried;

B. Considering that there is extremely diverse and multiple factors at the same time, it is extremely difficult to estimate when and to what extent a certain factor has influence on the limitation of liability, there may be cases where it is extremely difficult to prove that, in addition to unlawful acts such as false disclosure, the overall changes in the situation of the relevant company or the stock market during the period from the time of purchase to the time of the loss, etc., in addition to unlawful acts such as false disclosure, it may have influenced the occurrence of the loss, but it is extremely difficult to prove the daily amount of the loss caused by such other circumstances. In such a case, the amount of damages may be limited by such circumstances in light of the ideology of the compensation system, such as fair apportionment of the loss.

(2) In light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the investment of Defendant Company, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the investment of Defendant Company, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.