2. Determination on a claim for damages arising from a voluntary sale

A. The reasons why this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is to be stated are as follows: ① changing the “attached sheet” of the judgment of the court of first instance to the “attached sheet of details of repayment (repaid)” (in case of citing the judgment of the court of first instance, the “attached sheet” of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be changed to the “attached sheet of details of repayment (repaid)”; ② In addition to adding the following details to the following following following following following following the 14th judgment of the court of first instance, it is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of

B. Contents 1 of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Although Defendant B knew that the Plaintiff’s employee R had no authority to manage the Plaintiff’s Fund and was an assistant employee who merely delivers the Plaintiff’s operating instruction from the person responsible for operating the Fund, Defendant B was aware that the Plaintiff’s operating officer of the Fund was P on July 2013, and did not verify whether R was a person responsible for operating the Fund under P’s instructions. As such, Defendant B did not have any authority to manage the Plaintiff’s Fund, and did not receive any instruction from the person who has the right to decide on the operation of the Fund. Defendant B intentionally traded the Plaintiff’s funds against the Plaintiff’s will by using R, which was unaware of the fact that the K Group’s financial situation is very dangerous. (2) The Plaintiff became aware that the Plaintiff’s operating officer of the Fund was P on July 2013.

Even in light of the aforementioned circumstances, it cannot be deemed that R is obligated to verify whether Defendant B had been engaged in the operation of the Fund under P’s instruction, and further, there is no evidence to prove that Defendant B had engaged in a discretionary trade against the Plaintiff’s will by using R, and therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

3. Illegal acts by deception.