All appeals are dismissed.

Costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 by the plaintiffs

A. Article 178(1)2 of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (hereinafter “Capital Markets Act”) prohibits “an act of seeking money or other benefits on property by using a document containing a false description or representation of a material fact or an omission of a description or representation of a material fact necessary for preventing others from being misled, or any other description or representation, in connection with the trading and other transactions of financial investment instruments.”

This is to enhance the fairness and reliability of the capital market by protecting individual investors' interests participating in the transaction and enhancing the fairness and reliability of the capital market, because the unfair trading of financial investment instruments can affect a large number of investors and make the whole capital market unsound.

(1) Determination of whether an act constitutes an unlawful act prohibited under Article 178 of the Capital Markets Act in relation to trading of financial investment instruments ought to be made by comprehensively taking into account the structure of the pertinent financial investment instrument and the method and background leading up to such an act, the characteristics of the market where the relevant financial investment instrument is traded, the rights and duties of investors arising from the financial investment instrument and the timing of termination thereof, the relationship between the investor and the offender, and all the circumstances before and after such an act.

(See Supreme Court Order 2014Ma188 dated April 9, 2015). (b)

After recognizing the facts as indicated in its reasoning based on the adopted evidence, the lower court determined that it is difficult to view that the Defendants committed unfair trading even though they knew of the financial status of the Z at the time of soliciting the Plaintiffs.

C. Examining the aforementioned legal principles and the record, the lower court erred in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the requirements for establishing unfair trading, etc. or by committing unfair trading, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.