All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal by the plaintiffs are assessed against the plaintiffs and the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding the plaintiffs' grounds of appeal

A. Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court determined that the Defendant fulfilled its duty of care in connection with the sales of the overseas sales reduction devices at the time of preparing each audit report of this case.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the auditor’s duty to indicate the place of receipt of the inquiry, the recognition of profits from the sale of goods, the use of the provisional settlement statement by the equity law investment company, or by misapprehending the rules of evidence, failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations

B. On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court held that the causal link between the Defendant’s breach of his/her duty of care related to the sales of overseas sales reduction devices and the occurrence of damages was not proven, and that the amount of damages caused by the damaged stocks should be excluded from the scope of the damaged stocks entitled to claim damages on the basis of tort liability under the Civil Act, on the grounds that the disposed shares before the announcement of the opinion rejection audit report was made. The amount of damages caused by the damaged stocks is equivalent to the difference between the closing price of March 28, 2011, which was formed immediately before the suspension of transaction due to the announcement of the opinion rejection audit report, and the closing price of April 22, 201, which was formed after the fraudulent audit was revealed. However, if the sale was made on April 22, 201 and the value exceeds the closing price of April 22, 2011, the lower court determined that the difference between the sales price and the sales price.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations and exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence.

2. The defendant.