1. The plaintiffs' appeals against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing this case is as follows. Thus, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing this case is identical to the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the dismissal as set forth in the following paragraph (2).

2. Of the list No. 4 of the judgment of the court of first instance, part 1) of the judgment of the court of first instance, the plaintiff's first claim amount "1,162,648,121 won" shall be deemed "1,06,979,342 won," and the sum of the above plaintiff's claims amount "1,193,389,146 won" shall be deemed "1,097,720,367 won" and the plaintiff's appeal shall be deemed "1,097,720,367 won." On May 10, 2017, the plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as "the reasons of the judgment of first instance") were dismissed by the Financial Supervisory Service on the charges of excessive collection of fees for stock transaction and loan holders, and they were suspected of violating the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (hereinafter referred to as "the defendants' appeal was dismissed by the prosecutor on September 28, 2017."

1)(b)(4) to (7) shall add paragraphs (5) through (7) below to the following:

It is very rare that Defendant G made a statement to the effect that “(5) is an employee of a specific branch of Defendant E who does not have the right to determine the loan interest rate or the share transaction fee rate, and Defendant G made a statement to the effect that it is definitely promising the loan interest rate or the share transaction fee rate to apply the minimum interest rate or the share transaction fee rate to Defendant G.

Meanwhile, at the time of telephone conversations between Plaintiff A and Defendant G on February 5, 2015.