1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiffs, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition, and partial addition and conclusion as follows, and thus, it is citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the height of the part in question and the addition are as follows.

Defendant 1: (a) 2.3 billion won on November 4, 2010 to November 5, 201; (b) 3.5 billion won on December 14, 201 to June 10, 201; (c) 3.5 billion won on May 31, 201 to 2.3.5 billion won on May 31, 201 (the total amount of KRW 1.5 billion on June 201 to KRW 2.5 billion on June 21, 201 to KRW 2.5 billion on June 201 to KRW 3.5 billion on June 2, 201 (the total amount of KRW 1.5 billion on June 14, 201 to KRW 2.5 billion on June 21, 2011 to KRW 3.5 billion on June 205 to KRW 21.5 billion on June 21, 2011.

The Defendant asserts that the Defendant did not violate the duty to explain because the NN did not perform the NN’s female agreement and that the damage was incurred as the Defendant could have reasonably predicted, and that the NN’s investment proposal was trusted that the Defendant managed the loss by the NN’s agreement. However, as seen earlier, the instant discretionary investment product is likely to have exceeded the anticipated loss before NN’s response due to the rapid increase and decrease in the NOSP200 index, and accumulated.