1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Defendants ordering payment in excess of the following amount.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing the reasoning of the judgment citing the first instance is as follows: the 7th to 10th of the 7th judgment citing the 10th of the 10th judgment citing the 30,828,00 won "(amount of loss: 30,828,000 won)" as "(amount of loss: 21,95,760 won)"; therefore, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act citing it as it is. 2. However, the part after the 2th of the 10th judgment citing the 17th to 8th of the 8th

(2) The Plaintiff had been experienced in investing in ESS and DS products in a structure similar to about 10 times prior to each investment contract of this case. However, in the process, it appears that the ES and DS products are classified into high-risk products and are likely to cause principal loss. ③ The Plaintiff’s age and health conditions are difficult to deliver the above explanation to the same effect at once, but as long as the investment method has been made repeatedly, the Plaintiff could have been aware of each of the risks of each of the investment products of this case, the Plaintiff appears to have determined the investment of this case, i.e., each of the investment risks of this case, i., e., e., 10 times, and 10 times prior to each investment contract of this case.

In the course of a piracy call by the Plaintiff.