1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part concerning the preliminary claim of the judgment before remanding that was reversed by the judgment of the court of first instance.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this part of the underlying facts is that part of the relevant part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance other than the following: (a) the relevant part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (from No. 18 to No. 12, No. 6 of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (b) No. 54-55 of the judgment of the court of first instance) is the same as that of the above part; and (c)

The portion of “the amount of subscription” in attached Form 17-18 of the judgment of the first instance court shall be subject to the corporate bond of this case corresponding to the amount stated in the “the amount of subscription” in attached Form 17-18 of the judgment of the first instance court. The portion of “the date of purchase of goods” shall be as follows: “The corporate bond of this case corresponding to each corresponding amount stated in the respective “the date of purchase of goods” in the (attached Form 3) investment statement by the plaintiff and [Attachment 4] list

(b)in Part 6 of the Decision of the first instance, the following shall be added:

A person shall be appointed.

F. On August 19, 2013, which was the Plaintiff at the first instance trial, died on August 19, 2013 after the date of the pronouncement of the first instance judgment after the closing of argument in the first instance trial. G’s children, co-inheritors, and HB and HC taken over the instant lawsuit at the first instance court prior to remand.

A person shall be appointed.

2. As examined earlier, the plaintiffs' primary claim was separated by the pronouncement of the judgment of remand as to the plaintiffs' primary claim. Thus, the court below did not judge the primary claim of the plaintiffs after remand.

A. The gist of the plaintiffs' assertion 1, while soliciting the plaintiffs to make investments in the corporate bonds of this case, the defendant provided a conclusive judgment that the principal and interest would be not repaid through the investment prospectus, etc., or provided a false explanation that the defendant might misleads the plaintiffs to believe that the principal and interest would not be repaid, even though the financial status and liquidity of the Korean Shipping become worse, and it is uncertain whether the principal and interest are repaid.

(2) In addition, the Korean Shipping at that time shall be foreign to reduce charterages at a high price.