1. The judgment of the first instance court, including the Plaintiff’s claim extended by this court, is modified as follows.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the underlying facts is as follows: (a) except for the correction of “2016” in the first instance judgment No. 3, No. 16, “2017,” as “ around March 2017,” the corresponding part of the reasoning of the first instance judgment is the same as that of the corresponding part (1). Accordingly, it is cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the parties’ assertion (i) The original Defendant Company published the instant financial statements and the instant business report containing a false statement as if net income was generated, even though the net income was incurred, and the Defendant Company neglected to collect and confirm adequate and adequate audit evidence at the time of conducting external audits against the Defendant Company, and neglected to perform its duties as an auditor by making false statements of the instant financial statements and the audit report on the instant business report, without discovering the fact of division accounting of the Defendant Company.

The Plaintiff: (a) acquired the instant financial statements, the instant business report, and the instant audit report; and (b) incurred loss due to the decline in stock prices; (c) thus, Defendant Company and Defendant C, its representative director, are liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the loss incurred by the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 170(1) of the Capital Markets Act and Article 17(2) and (3) of the External Audit Act; and (d) Defendant Accounting Corporation is liable for compensating the Plaintiff for the loss incurred by the Plaintiff along with Defendant Company and Defendant C pursuant to Article 17(

According to Articles 162(3) and 170(2) of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, the amount of damages sustained by the Plaintiff due to the said tort by the Defendants reaches KRW 72,986,250.

Therefore, the Defendants jointly have the obligation to pay damages to the Plaintiff KRW 72,986,250 and damages for delay.

⑵ 피고들 ㈎ 피고 회사가 이...