1. The part concerning net G in the judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The defendant is each of the plaintiffs 5,859.

Basic Facts

The court's explanation on this part is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the modification as follows, and therefore, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is amended to “Plaintiffs” in paragraph (1) of the same Article to “the co-Plaintiffs of the party in the trial of the trial of the trial of the trial of the trial of which judgment is rendered separately from the network G and separately.” The 11th sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance is amended as follows. The corporate bonds of this case corresponding to the amount indicated in the column for entry of the subscription amount in the list of the cited amount in the attached Form 1 shall be amended to “the date of purchase of the goods” as “the corporate bonds of this case corresponding to the amount indicated in the “investment amount” on the date indicated

F. G, the Plaintiff at the first instance trial, died on August 19, 2013, which was before the pronouncement of the judgment after the date of closing of argument in the first instance trial, and G’s attorney at the first instance trial is granted special authorization for filing an appeal.

The successors are the plaintiffs who are children of the network G, and their inheritance shares are 1/2, respectively.

The court's explanation of this part of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning the primary claim is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as that of Paragraph 2 of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

In February 12, 2015, a part of the judgment that was separately rendered on February 12, 2015 added "the judgment on the plaintiffs' additional argument except the net G".

However, in the case of this case, although the plaintiffs were the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs did not appoint the attorney at the court of the party, and only the petition of appeal submitted by the plaintiff at the court of the first instance was filed because they were absent on the date of pleading at the court of the party.

Therefore, in this judgment, the plaintiffs cannot be deemed to have made an additional assertion in the trial, so the judgment on this cannot be added.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' primary claims are without merit.

The key point of the plaintiffs' assertion on preliminary claims is 1.