A. On June 25, 2010, the Plaintiff opened a derivatives account at the Defendant’s branch office B (hereinafter “instant account”) and deposited KRW 450,000,000 into the instant account after designating C as a proxy, and traded futures options through C.

B. As a result of the Plaintiff’s transaction through C by October 8, 2010, the Plaintiff suffered a loss of KRW 171,665,02, and as a result, D, the husband of the Plaintiff, visited the Defendant’s branch office B to suspend the transaction by resisting against excessive trading.

Accordingly, C would refrain from excessive trade to D, and would make losses thereafter, so that C would not stop trading and demand additional payment, and E, which was the head of the defendant's branch office B, would offer a lower fee.

D on October 18, 2010, additionally deposited KRW 50,000,00 in the instant account, and C continued to manage the instant account.

Since then, the amount of losses of the account of this case is growing, and D calls for this, C issued a promissory note, which is the debtor C and the payee, on December 14, 2010, and it was notarized and given to D.

C. On March 17, 2011, the Plaintiff filed an application for extension to designate C as the Plaintiff’s business agent by March 16, 2012, and C continued the transaction of derivatives from the instant account until March 30, 2011.

(C) On March 30, 2011, the balance of the instant account was KRW 144,840,228 as of March 30, 201, and KRW 356,105,030 for nine months from June 25, 2010 to March 30, 201, and the balance of the instant account was reduced by KRW 353,989,372 while managing the instant account.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, testimony of Gap witness E in the first instance trial, purport of whole pleadings.

2. The plaintiff and the defendant's assertion

A. As seen in the Plaintiff’s assertion based on the above facts, C is the order agent of the instant account.