1. All appeals filed by plaintiffs F and the defendant are dismissed.

2. The portion arising between Plaintiff F and the Defendant out of the appeal cost.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as follows, and this part of the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the following matters:

Under the 8th page, the term “this Court” in the 3th sentence shall be read as “court of the first instance”, and the term “not later than the date of the pronouncement of the instant judgment” in the 16th sentence as “not later than the date of the pronouncement of the first instance judgment”, respectively.

Under Chapter 16, the part of the Defendant’s argument regarding the Defendant’s argument is as follows. (C) The Defendant’s argument about the Defendant’s assertion (1) that the H Savings Bank is liable for damages due to the issuance of the subordinated bonds in this case by making a registration statement, business report, etc. in a false manner, and such act itself cannot be deemed as an act of acquisition of fraud, etc., and the Plaintiffs asserted to the purport that the limitation of liability should be limited to certain parts, considering the inherent risk of subordinated bonds itself in acquiring the H Savings Bank’s subordinated bonds in this case, taking into account the fact that the Plaintiff made a investment decision by self-determination. (The Defendant’s intentional act is not allowed for the person who intentionally committed the tort by taking advantage of the victim’s care immediately to reduce his liability on the ground of the victim’s negligence. If such intentional act constitutes zero, the recognition of the limitation of liability as to comparative negligence is due to the fact that the perpetrator ultimately holds profits from the tort, and thus, it would result in an intentional act contrary to the idea of fairness or good faith.

(b).