1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. All plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

3. The plaintiffs' total costs of litigation.

1. The reasons for this court's explanation is the same as the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance except for the following changes and the parts of paragraphs (c) and (5) of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The modification of paragraph 4-b, of the grounds for the judgment of the first instance, shall be as follows:

B. Whether the plaintiffs' assertion constitutes abuse of the right of set-off (1) since it was intended to offer collateral for bonds to the plaintiffs who are bond holders, and the plaintiffs would not have purchased bonds issued by C if they were not established a pledge on the first and second deposit claims of this case, and the defendant would have been well aware of these circumstances. The defendant's assertion of set-off against C is to disregard the plaintiffs' rights trusted and acting in the defendant's act, and it is against the principle of good faith that the defendant's exercise of the right of set-off is not permitted as abuse of the right. 2) The financial institution has a legitimate right to set-off against the deposit obligations with the opposing bond against the deposit holders, and it can be expected that the claim can be recovered smoothly in the future. Thus, in order to be held as abuse of the right of set-off or the principle of good faith, the financial institution has a duty to cooperate with the other parties or third parties or to exercise the right of set-off and to exercise the right of set-off (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da3920.).