1. The judgment of the first instance, including the claims of Plaintiff E expanded in the trial, shall be modified as follows:

1. The reasons why the court should explain in this judgment are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the cases where part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is changed as stated in the following Paragraph (2). Thus, it shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be dried;

A. On September 1, 2014, the first instance court held that “Korea Exchange Bank of Korea” in the 15th sentence of the 8th judgment was “Korea Exchange Bank of Korea (On the other hand, Korea Exchange Bank of Korea was established on September 1, 2014 after the division of the company,” and that the said foreign exchange card took over the lawsuit against Korea Exchange Bank in the first instance following the transfer of all rights and duties regarding the credit card division to the said foreign exchange card, and the said foreign exchange card was changed to one stock company on December 1, 2014.”

(b) No. 14 of the first instance court's decision No. 55, "No. 19 No. 5 (the number of transactions by Defendant No. 19)" was written with "No. 5-2 (Case No. 5-2 (Case No. 5) and No. 19 (the number of transactions by Defendant No. 5)."

C. The part of the “number of transactions” in the list of cited amounts in the attached Form No. 16 of the judgment of the court of first instance (hereinafter “number of transactions”) shall be referred to as “number of transactions” in the cited amount list. D.

According to each entry of the 58 (AB) Evidence Nos. 8-A (AB) in Part 19 of the first instance judgment of the court of first instance, the part " shall be written according to each entry of Evidence Nos. 8-A (AB) and Evidence Nos. 10-1 (AB)."

E. The part “Plaintiff F” in the 21st sentence of the first instance court Decision No. 56 was written by “Plaintiff F from AV” from Plaintiff E and its partner BI, and Plaintiff F was written by “Plaintiff F” from AV.

F. The part of the 57th 6-7 of the first instance court's decision "Therefore, the plaintiffs' assertion is justified within the above scope of recognition." Therefore, the plaintiffs' assertion is justified within the above scope of recognition.

On this issue, the plaintiff corporation.