1. The part against the Defendants in the judgment of the court of first instance that exceeds the following order of payment.

1. The court's explanation of this part of the basic facts is identical to the part concerning the Defendants under Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, on the ground that the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the part concerning the Defendants.

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The Defendants asserting that they are liable for damages suffered by the Plaintiffs due to their tort committed in violation of the Act on the Regulation of Fraud and Fashion Receiving.

Furthermore, the amount of damages suffered by the Plaintiffs is KRW 315,00,000 in the case of Plaintiff A (the total amount of investments, the principal is not recovered), KRW 280,000 in the case of Plaintiff B (the total amount of investments KRW 330,00,000 in the case of Plaintiff B) and KRW 439,170,000 in the case of Plaintiff C (the total amount of investments).

B. It was true that the Defendants asserted that they recommended investment to the Plaintiffs, but the Defendants were punished only as a victim of a fraudulent act committed by Co-Defendant H, I, and J in the first instance trial, and thus, they cannot be deemed liable for joint tort against the Plaintiffs.

Even if the Defendants are liable for tort liability against the Plaintiffs, the amount received by the Plaintiffs as the name of profits, etc. from investment funds should be deducted when calculating the amount of damages.

In addition, Defendant M did not make investment recommendations against Plaintiff C, and Defendant M did not bear joint tort liability against Plaintiff A and B on the ground that Defendant M did not make investment recommendations against Plaintiff A and B, and Defendant M did not bear joint tort liability against Plaintiff A and B.

C. According to the facts acknowledged prior to the establishment of tort liability 1, Defendant M is liable for damages suffered by Plaintiff A and B, and DefendantO is liable for damages suffered by Plaintiff A and B, and DefendantO is liable for damages suffered by Plaintiff C, respectively.

As to this, the defendant M&O was punished only as a victim of fraud, and therefore, the defendant M&O was punished as an act of receiving money without delay.