1. The plaintiffs' respective claims against the defendants are dismissed in entirety.

2. Of the litigation costs, the costs are between the Plaintiff A and the Defendants.

1. Basic facts

A. The status of the parties 1) Defendant C Co., Ltd. (EE Co., Ltd. prior to the alteration; hereinafter “Defendant C”).

2) Defendant D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant D”)

(1) The Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (hereinafter “Capital Markets Act”) provides for the following:

(2) The Plaintiffs are investors who entered into a discretionary investment contract with Defendant D upon investment recommendation by the head of Defendant CF branch G, and Plaintiff B is Plaintiff A’s children.

B. The Plaintiffs and Defendant D’s conclusion of a discretionary investment contract refers to the right to purchase the underlying assets at a specific price at a specific point of time, which is different from each other’s price on the KOSP 200 index listed on the Korea Exchange as the contract amount received from investors for the full-time investment.

) Financial investment instruments with the content that profits are earned by selling or purchasing the category and that where the cumulative yield does not exceed 18% per annum, 20% of the total earnings, and where the cumulative yield exceeds 18% per annum, 30% of the total earnings as performance fees (hereinafter “instant product”).

(2) On May 2013, Plaintiff A invested in “H”, which is the goods of Defendant C’s employee G, after having received the letter of investment recommendation from Defendant C’s employee G, or after having become aware of it, made an investment by entering into a discretionary investment contract with I or entering into a discretionary investment contract. On October 2013, Plaintiff A received the instant goods from G at Defendant CF branch office and claimed that there was no receipt of the instant goods proposal (Evidence A1; hereinafter “instant goods proposal”) provided by Defendant D from G. However, the Plaintiffs filed the instant lawsuit, and submitted the instant goods proposal to this court as evidence 11. The instant goods proposal was partially modified by Defendant D’s basic form, and was made available to Defendant CF branch and kept it at Defendant CF branch.