1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: the defendant's "the defendant" in Part 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance No. 8; the "F" in Part 10 of the same part of the judgment of the court of first instance as "H"; the "deposit" in Part 15 of the same part of the judgment of the court of first instance as "money"; the "deposit 16" in the same part of the judgment of the court of first instance as "money"; and the "additional Judgment" in the part of the judgment of the court of first instance is added to the allegations added by the court of first instance as "the second judgment" in the main part of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. D, the Defendant’s employee of the Plaintiffs’ assertion, is in violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act by running a discretionary investment business without making a registration for the financial investment business, and the Defendant, the Defendant, as the employer, bears the Defendant’s obligation to manage and supervise D’s customers to prevent the Defendant from engaging in an illegal discretionary investment business. Thus, the Defendant is liable for compensating the Plaintiffs for damages suffered by the Plaintiffs due to the aforementioned tort.

B. First of all, we examine whether D is liable for tort against the plaintiffs by running a discretionary investment business without registering the financial investment business, and examine the following circumstances: (i) the plaintiffs delivered cash to D while engaging in an investment business against D individuals, not the defendant, who is a financial institution, but employees thereof; and (ii) whether D is registered as a discretionary investment business entity, it cannot be deemed that the plaintiffs suffered losses as alleged by D's non-registrationless discretionary investment business due to D's non-registration operation; and (ii) it cannot be deemed that the plaintiffs suffered losses as alleged by D's non-registrationless discretionary investment business.