However, according to the plaintiff's assertion on factual relations, while the plaintiff opened a CMA passbook at the window with the defendant, the defendant unilaterally contracted the EMA product under the plaintiff's name while misrepresenting himself/herself to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff became aware of such circumstance only after opening the CMA passbook. It is difficult to say that the defendant committed a tort, or provided or participated in the cause. In addition, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the defendant invested the money in the plaintiff's financial product without the plaintiff's consent, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion cannot be accepted.

After all, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with some different conclusions, so the defendant's appeal is accepted, and the part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part is dismissed