All appeals are dismissed.

Of the costs of appeal by Plaintiff D, the costs of appeal are assessed against Plaintiff D and Defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to Plaintiff D’s grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2, the lower court determined that: (a) based on the facts set forth in its reasoning, the allowance for bad debts set up by F on the basis of the sales claim recall set forth by F in the consolidated financial statements of Plaintiff A accounting corporation, Plaintiff B, and Plaintiff D on the 58th period (hereinafter “F”) (from January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2012; hereinafter “No. 58”) and its subordinate companies is reasonable; and (b) indicated an appropriate opinion on the audit report, the lower court determined that the aforementioned Plaintiffs’ reasonable final evaluation of whether the business plan set by F and future cash flow forecast presented by F should be conducted with an expert doubt, and whether there is any inconsistency with other audit evidence collected in the audit process by obtaining adequate and adequate audit evidence; and (c) whether the allowance for bad debts of H 58 (hereinafter “instant financial statements”) was not set, by simply examining only formally in violation of the standards for accounting audit.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court’s determination is acceptable. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the ground of appeal by Plaintiff D, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the interpretation and application of the standards

2. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court, comprehensively taking account of the circumstances as indicated in its reasoning, found that Plaintiff A accounting corporation, Plaintiff B, and Plaintiff E were subject to damage to the sales claim of this case, on the consolidated financial statements of the 57 period (from January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2012; hereinafter “57 period”) of F and its subordinate companies, the lower court failed to discover the damage after the Plaintiffs, the auditor, even if they were subject to damage to the sales claim of this case.