1. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant Han Investment Securities Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) is a company established for the purpose of investment advisory business, discretionary investment business, investment trading business, investment brokerage business, etc. under the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (hereinafter “Capital Markets Act”). Defendant A is an employee of Defendant Company B’s “branch”.

B. From January 201, the Plaintiffs concluded a discretionary investment contract (hereinafter “each of the instant discretionary contracts”) with the Defendant Company, and designated “Defendant A” as a discretionary investment asset management company, and around that time, opened a general asset management account for discretionary investment (hereinafter “each of the instant accounts”) with the Defendant Company, and deposited each of the amounts indicated in the “deposit amount” column in the attached Table 2 as the discretionary investment property.

C. The Plaintiffs concluded each of the instant contract with the Defendant Company with respect to the goods “one dancing scrap” refers to “basic fee type.” The “basic fee type” requires the Plaintiffs to pay the Defendant Company a transaction fee multiplied by the daily average appraised amount of deposited assets and the fee rate during the quarter. The Plaintiffs agreed that the consultation fee rate with the Defendant Company was 2.0% or 2.4% per annum.

Each of the accounts of this case was operated from the time when the Plaintiffs entered into the contract to August 2, 2011, and around August 12, 2011, a major loss was incurred from each of the accounts of this case to 65% of the principal amount.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 29 (including each number in case of additional evidence) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Defendants asserted that they performed discretionary investment business under each of the contracts of this case, by entrusting the management of the Plaintiffs’ discretionary investment property to Nonparty C, an unqualified, with the management of the Plaintiffs’ discretionary investment property, and the above C performed the discretionary investment business unlawfully.