1. We examine the plaintiffs' first ground for appeal.

A financial investment business entity shall grasp information about the investment purpose, status of property, experience in investment, etc. of an ordinary investor through interviews, inquiries, etc. before recommending an ordinary investor to make an investment, and shall not make an investment recommendation deemed unsuitable for the ordinary investor in light of the investment purpose, status of property, experience in investment, etc. of the ordinary investor (hereinafter referred to as the “Capital Markets Act”).

() Article 46(2) and (3) of the lower court determined as follows: (a) based on the circumstances stated in the lower judgment regarding the career, property status, investment experience, investment purpose, etc. of the Plaintiffs and their agents C, the lower court determined to the effect that it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant’s solicitation of the conclusion of each specific money trust contract (hereinafter “each of the instant trust contracts”) with the content that the Defendant would make an investment in and operate the corporate bills issued by ELD Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “ELD Construction”) against the Plaintiffs to violate the suitability principle.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant statutes and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the suitability principle, including the base point of time for determining whether the suitability principle is observed, or by omitting judgment on the violation of the duty to deliver investor information confirmation and failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, as alleged in the grounds of appeal

2. We examine the plaintiffs' grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and the defendant's grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2.

(a)(1).