1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. Plaintiff B and A received investment consultation from the Defendant, who is an employee of Samsung Securities Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Tsung Securities”), and Plaintiff B, on behalf of the Plaintiff, invested KRW 50,000,000 on February 1, 201 under the Plaintiff’s name on behalf of the Plaintiff A in a type of derivatives-combined securities (for example, the issue name: 4530,000 (one-year principal and interest guarantee type; hereinafter “instant 4530 ES goods”) in general in connection with the share price index and the movement of specific stocks, and invested KRW 4530,00,00 in a type of derivatives-combined securities, and Plaintiff B invested KRW 50,00 on March 30, 201 in an ES securities (one-year principal and interest guarantee type) (one-year principal and one-year principal and five-year principal and five-year principal and five-year principal and five (400,000,00).

B. The instant 4530 ESS is goods based on the underlying asset of the common share and the two industrial infrastructure common share. The instant 5040 ES is goods based on the underlying asset of the modern common share and the two industrial infrastructure common share. The instant 5040 ES is goods that are automatically fixed at the time of exercising the event every four months. At the pertinent time, each basic company’s interim standard price or the final maturity assessment date is equal to or higher than the redemption price at the time of the exercise.

C. The instant 4530 ES products were repaid at maturity on February 1, 2012, and the maturity redemption amounted to KRW 34,405,00, and the instant 5040 ES products were repaid on March 29, 2013, and the maturity redemption amount was KRW 25,859,247.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings

2. On August 1, 201, Plaintiff B requested the redemption of the instant 4530 ESS and 5040 ES goods (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant goods”) using the Defendant’s mobile phone on or around 14:44, 201, and the Defendant unilaterally rejected Plaintiff B’s request.