1. The defendant M shall pay to the plaintiffs each amount stated in the "total amount of damage by individual" in attached Table 1 and each of them.

1. Determination as to the claim against Defendant L or M

A. Defendant M& who is the primary cause of the Plaintiffs’ primary claim is a person who has completed business registration under the trade name of “P”, and Defendant L is a person who actually runs a precious metal sales business while operating the aforementioned “P”.

Around 2013, Defendant L made a false order to purchase gold, and then made a payment with a card, the Defendant L proposed a so-called “line tin” transaction that returns 80-95% of the settlement amount in cash, and theO accepted it and caused Defendant L, M and M to make a transaction.

O made a proposal to the effect that it would bring profits to the investors who participated in the "gold-line" transaction, and would bring profits to the investors who participated in the "gold-line" transaction and settle the purchase price of the gold with themselves, and it has paid profits to the investors who participated in the "gold-line" transaction.

In addition, in order for investors to be unable to pay more profits only from the “gold System” to the extent that there is a false statement of the high-income funds operated by Q Q, a stock company, in which they are working, another investor has been recruited, and the said “North Korean Fund” has been paid in the form of a return of the profits received from the investors of the said “North Korea Fund” and “North Korea Fund.”

Ultimately, the Plaintiffs, who invested in the “gold System” or “North Fund” from July 2013 to May 2014, did not recover the amount equivalent to the “total amount of damage by individual” in attached Table 1.

On the other hand, Defendant L and M only participated in the operation of “P” and obtained considerable benefits through transactions withO, and it should be deemed that the O recognized the above fraud, and participated in or aided such fraud.

In other words, Defendant L and M also bear the responsibility for joint tort against the plaintiffs withO. Therefore, Defendant L and M are reasonable.