1. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

A. On June 15, 2012, the Plaintiffs received KRW 750,000,000 as fire insurance money, as the elderly who are living in farming and fishing village at the Jeonnam High interest.

After that, Defendant C, an employee of Defendant New Financial Investment Company (hereinafter only referred to as Defendant Company), recommended that the Plaintiff B pay 10% interest per annum in three months.

Accordingly, Plaintiff B believed Defendant C’s horses and deposited KRW 300 million on July 24, 2012, and KRW 300 million under Plaintiff B’s husband’s name on August 7, 2012, respectively, with the knowledge that it was a three-month maturity product.

However, in fact, Defendant C invested KRW 300 million deposited in Plaintiff A’s name in the ESS products with a three-year maturity, not a three-month maturity. Ultimately, on November 27, 2015, only KRW 133,891,625 below the principal amount of KRW 300 million due to the repayment of KRW 166,108,375.

Meanwhile, on June 21, 2012, upon Defendant C’s solicitation, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 150,000,000 out of the fire insurance money to the Defendant Company’s CMA securities account. Defendant C arbitrarily purchased and sold shares from August 21, 2012 to March 2016, resulting in damage of KRW 13,196,252 from the said CMA account.

B. Defendant C’s solicitation for investment in the Els products is contrary to the suitability principle under Article 46 of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (hereinafter “Capital Markets Act”), and Article 47 of the duty to explain. As such, Defendant C is a direct tortfeasor, Defendant C is an employer of Defendant C, and Defendant C is primarily responsible for compensating Plaintiff A and Plaintiff B for damages incurred in relation to the investment in the Els products.

C. Defendant C’s assertion as to the damage to the CMA account is primarily a voluntary trade prohibited under Article 70 of the Capital Markets Act, and as a preliminary trade prohibited under Article 71 subparag. 6 of the same Act, it would cause damage equivalent to KRW 13,196,252 to Plaintiff B.