1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part concerning the plaintiffs' claim against Defendant V-accounting corporation was modified as follows.

(c) a.

(e).

1. The reasoning for the explanation in this part of the basic facts is as stated in the part of '1. Basic Facts' from 4th to 9th 10th 10th 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, they are cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. Determination on the claim against Defendant V-accounting corporation

A. The reasons for this part of the liability for damages under Article 125(1) of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act are as follows: (a) addition to the following items after the 12th fifth of the judgment of the court of first instance; (b) addition to the third third of the judgment of the court of first instance, “this part of the plaintiffs’ assertion is without merit; and (c) addition to deletion of the 4th and 6th of the judgment of the court of first instance from the 10th to the 13th 6th 6th 6th 13th 10 of the judgment of the court of first instance, the "liability for damages under Article 125(1) of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (hereinafter "the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act") is identical to the part of the "liability for damages under Article

Therefore, in the instant lawsuit, the part concerning the second or third junior claim registration statement among the claims for damages under Article 125(1) of the Capital Markets Act against Defendant V Accounting Corporations, other than Plaintiff Q and S, is unlawful after the exclusion period expires.

B. The reasoning for the statement in this part of the liability for damages under Article 162(1) of the Capital Markets Act is as stated in the part concerning “liability for damages under Article 162(1) of the said Act” from 7th to 14th 16th 14th 7th 14th 7th 14th 14th 14th 14th 14th 14th 14th 14th 14th 14th 14th 1

Therefore, the claim for damages under Article 162 (1) of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act concerning the 26th business report among the lawsuit in this case is unlawful.

C. Article 170(1) of the Capital Markets Act and Article 17 of the External Audit Act.