1. As to the fact that a discretionary trading or futures trading is erroneous

The court below, citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, held that the defendant's 100,000 won was deposited on October 7, 1998 and 2500,00 won respectively after opening the above futures trading account on October 23, 1997, and that the non-party 1, who was an employee of the plaintiff company, was finally entitled to sell 16,000 won by using the above account from January 7, 1998 to March 13, 1998, and that the defendant did not have any obligation to sell 9,000 won after 19,000 won was 9,000 won, and that the above 19,000 won was less than 9,00 won, and that the above 19,000 won was less than 9,000 won, and that the above 19,000 won was less than 9,000 won, and that the defendant did not have any duty to sell 16,75,0,0.

In light of the records, the above fact-finding and decision of the court below are acceptable, and there is no violation of law of misconception of facts due to violation of the rules of evidence as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

Furthermore, according to the records, when the plaintiff company notifies the defendant of only the monthly transaction details and balance status as of the end of the month in relation to the futures trading in this case, it is pointed out by the defendant that some notice is omitted, etc. However, in light of the contents of Gap's evidence 3 (Transaction) and so forth, it is merely an omission of part of the marina indication in entering futures settlement marginal profits and losses in accordance with the daily settlement after the futures trading. Thus, it cannot be said that the court below's fact-finding was erroneous on this ground.

The ground of appeal on this part is without merit.

2. As to the violation of the duty to trade against the counter

The purport of Article 26 of the former Rules of Brokerage Contract of the Stock Exchange based on Article 94 of the Securities and Exchange (amended by the Securities and Exchange Business Regulations on January 29, 199) provides that when a truster fails to pay a consignment guarantee money, a securities company may resell or repurchase the outstanding settlement agreement of the relevant truster or sell substitute securities collected as a consignment guarantee money, which may be caused by the relevant securities company’s non-limited futures trading. Meanwhile, the purpose of this provision is to restrain the over-the-counterization of the securities market which may be caused by the securities company’s non-limited futures trading, and to prompt recovery of recovery of claims and to ensure internal administration of the securities company. Unless otherwise agreed between the securities company and its customer, the securities company is not obligated to take measures for appropriation of the above futures settlement as above on the basis of the above provision (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da624259, Jul. 10, 1992). 20, the securities company may not be deemed to have violated the duty of due care and good faith at the time of its customers to dispose of any loss.

In this view, the judgment of the court below that the securities company cannot be said to have an obligation to immediately terminate the transactional relationship with the customer unless additional payment is made in case the securities company has a shortage of consignment guarantee money for the customer, is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as otherwise alleged.

3. As to the claim for the outstanding amount as a double claim, etc., since the offer of security was made

In light of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion that on January 7, 1998, the plaintiff's employees submitted each letter of claim to compensate the plaintiff's company for losses incurred by the plaintiff company, including the defendant's account of the non-party Kim Jong-il, which was entrusted and managed by him, and that on January 19, 198, the defendant's claim to compensate for losses incurred to the plaintiff company by applying the deposit interest rate of the plaintiff company's company's provision to the principal, regardless of whether the defendant's profits and losses occurred in the above account of the defendant's above, and that if the defendant's security for the whole amount of the above account is insufficient, the defendant's submission of the letter of claim to delegate it to the disposition of the company, and that each of the above statements was submitted to the plaintiff company, and that the defendant did not bear any responsibility for the defendant's losses, such as an agreement, if he did not pay additional deposit to the account of this case.

In light of the records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are acceptable, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of facts against the rules of evidence or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the probative value of disposal documents, as alleged in the

In addition, even though he agreed that he would secure losses or offer security against the Plaintiff Company, the Plaintiff’s claim in this case cannot be deemed as a double claim since the claim in this case against the Defendant of the Plaintiff Company is not extinguished due to that reason, even though he agreed that he would secure losses or offer security against the Plaintiff Company. From another point of view, this part of the ground of appeal that criticizes the lower court’s conclusion is without merit.

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jae-in (Presiding Justice)