채무부존재확인
1. As to the sale and purchase of corporate bonds issued on September 10, 2009 by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff), the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).
A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.
1. On August 25, 2009, the Defendant purchased the amount of KRW 26,124,000 in KRW 24,56,808 on September 10, 2009, after opening an account through Nonparty B, an employee, at the Plaintiff’s Cheongju Branch.
On July 29, 2011, Daewoo Motor Vehicle Sales Company, which issued the corporate bonds of this case, filed an application for commencement of rehabilitation, and the rehabilitation plan was approved in the rehabilitation procedure.
[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The gist of the argument (i.e., the cause of counterclaim) of the Defendant’s assertion was as follows: (a) Company B, an employee of the Plaintiff, recommended Nonparty C to purchase the corporate bonds of this case with a high risk of loss of principal; and (b) the Defendant issued a bond description to Nonparty C; and (c) the Defendant confirmed B as “Ipin ge.” and purchased the corporate bonds of this case in response to the receipt of the bond from Nonparty C and to counseling.
B sold the corporate bonds of this case, which are financial investment instruments under the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (hereinafter “Capital Markets Act”), to the Defendant, and did not explain the contents of the corporate bonds of this case and the risks associated with the investment under the Capital Markets Act, and did not obtain confirmation by means of signature, signature, seal, recording, and other methods prescribed by Presidential Decree that ordinary investors have understood the explained contents.
The Defendant, as an ordinary investor with a compensatory investment inclination, did not invest in the corporate bonds of this case if he had explained about the risk of bonds investment. Therefore, the causal link between the duty to explain and the total amount of damages is recognized. Therefore, the Plaintiff is liable to compensate the Defendant for the total amount of KRW 24,56,808, which is used by the Defendant to purchase the corporate bonds of this case in accordance with the Capital Markets Act and has not been recovered.
The summary of the Plaintiff’s argument (the cause of the principal claim) is in accordance with Article 47 of the Capital Markets Act.