1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against Plaintiff O or P, which confirms or orders payment under the following, shall be revoked.

Plaintiff .

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part is as stated in Paragraph 2 of the judgment of the first instance, except for addition, modification, or deletion as follows. Thus, this part of the reasoning is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The amended plaintiffs filed the lawsuit in this case on January 20, 2012 as follows, and the Busan District Court of Busan on August 16, 2012, and the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd was declared bankrupt by the Seoul Central District Court on February 23, 2012, and the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd was declared bankrupt by the Daejeon District Court on February 2, 2012, and the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd was declared bankrupt by the Jeonju District Court on February 23, 2012.

Plaintiff

A Q reported the principal amount of 19,375,340 won (=17,00,000 interest of KRW 2,375,340) as a bankruptcy claim in the bankruptcy proceeding of AB, and Defendant B’s bankruptcy trustee was the time.

The rest of the plaintiffs, other than the above plaintiffs, reported the damage claim suffered from the purchase of subordinated bonds in each of the bankruptcy procedures, as bankruptcy claims, but subparagraph 3 of the certificate No. 10 No. 10 shall indicate the cause of the claim as subordinated bonds.

However, although the plaintiff AZ, BF, and BI have a subordinated bond right against the KCAB, there is only room to claim the damage claim incurred by the purchase of subordinated bonds, not subordinated bonds, with respect to the KCAB, and the trustee in bankruptcy of the defendant E has raised an objection against the report of the bankruptcy claim, and even in the lawsuit in this case, the trustee in bankruptcy of the defendant E has filed a report of the damage claim from the above plaintiffs, but the objection has been asserted. In light of the above, the above provision seems to be erroneous

The trustee in bankruptcy has raised an objection to this.

In Chapter 9, the corresponding part of Chapter 9 is deleted, and the corresponding part of Chapter 14 is amended as follows.