1. Of the judgment of the first instance court, part of the judgment against Defendant Key Investment Asset Management Co., Ltd. is modified as follows:

1. The reasons why this Court uses this part of the underlying facts are as follows, and the reasons why this Court uses this part are the same as the entry “1. Basic Facts” in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal of the pertinent parts as follows. As such, it refers to the same as it is in accordance with the main sentence of

In the 9th sentence of the first instance court, the phrase “entry was recorded” was stated in the 13th sentence of the said 13th sentence, “(see, e.g., evidence No. 13-17, 18, and, on the other hand, the Defendant Bank and the witness G of the first instance court alleged that G transferred the advertising site to F at the time of soliciting subscription to the Fund of this case after the closure of the first instance trial, submitted evidence No. 15, and the Plaintiffs made a copy of the said evidence as they were, and submitted to F, evidence No. 14-1, 2.”

B. The document of the title No. 15 of the first instance court’s 9th trial decision is regarded as “documents of the title No. 15” (hereinafter “ Q&A data”).

(c) the term “witness” in the 6th sentence of the first instance court ruling shall be read as “a witness of the first instance court”;

2. The reason why the court uses this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is the same as the part of "2. plaintiffs' assertion" in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

3. Determination

A. The reason why the court uses this part of the primary claim is 3-A of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the dismissal of the corresponding part as follows:

Paragraph 1 is the same as the part of the “determination on the causes of the principal claim”, and thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The first instance court's decision corresponds to a mistake by gross negligence, which constitutes a mistake by gross negligence, and even if F did not receive an investment prospectus from G as alleged by the plaintiffs, G calls for the issuance of an investment prospectus by F.