The defendant jointly with B shall pay to the plaintiff 6,153,14 won and the amount calculated by applying 5% per annum from January 5, 2015 to September 8, 2017, and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

2. The plaintiff's incidental appeal and the defendant's remaining appeal are dismissed, respectively.

3. Of the total litigation costs, 70% is borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder is borne by the Defendant, respectively.

The defendant shall pay the plaintiff 267,564,655 won in collaboration with B (joint defendants of the first instance) and the amount calculated by applying 6% per annum from May 26, 2014 to the sentencing date of the first instance court of this case and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. Purport of appeal;

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above revocation shall be dismissed.

3. Purport of an incidental appeal;

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff falling under the following order to pay additional amounts shall be instituted. The defendant shall jointly pay to the plaintiff 107,015,566 won and the amount calculated by applying 5% per annum from January 5, 2015 to the rendering of a final judgment of the court of first instance, and 15% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

A. On October 17, 2008, the Plaintiff filed an application for HTS1 when opening an account of stock transaction at the Defendant’s Mineyang Co., Ltd. at the Defendant’s point of Mineyang Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant account”). The balance and the details of transactions are to be received by mail.

B. Since then, the Defendant’s employees D were responsible for the management of the instant account, and on April 16, 2014, B was designated as the management staff of the instant account.

C. On May 20, 2014, the Plaintiff decided to repurchase the Plaintiff’s existing financial instruments after consultation with B, and the redemption price was deposited into the instant account, and on May 26, 2014, the balance of the instant account as of May 26, 2014, was KRW 280,360,745, plus KRW 51,000,000,000,000,000,000 won.

D. From May 28, 2014, B traded shares through the instant account. On August 27, 2014, B drafted a letter stating that “I will compensate the Plaintiff for the total amount of principal (280 million won) if I do not compensate for any loss of principal (200 million won) by December 31, 2014, as I arbitrarily sold or sold shares without the Plaintiff’s permission, which is a customer,” (hereinafter “each letter of this case”).

E. Afterwards, B continued stock transaction through the instant account, but losses were further increased. However, the balance of the instant account as of January 5, 2015, which was the date of the final stock transaction, was KRW 12,778,981, and the final balance of the instant account as of March 16, 2015, is KRW 12,796,090.

(f) The details of stock trade traded through the instant account from May 28, 2014 to January 5, 2015 are as listed in attached Table 1; fees, sales turnover rates, etc. for the same period are as listed in attached Table 2 [Grounds for Recognition]; entries in Gap's 1, 2, 5, Eul's 1, 2, 4, 11 (each number number distribution; hereinafter the same shall apply); and the purport of the entire pleadings;

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The plaintiff's assertion 2)

1) B arbitrarily operated the instant account without the Plaintiff’s consent or delegation from May 26, 2014 to July 1, 2014, and incurred losses to the Plaintiff (i.e., KRW 124,122,857 (i., the Plaintiff’s initial asset KRW 280,360,745), - the Plaintiff’s assessed value of the Plaintiff’s asset as of July 1, 2014, 156,237,888).

2) In addition, B, from July 1, 2014 to January 5, 2015, for the purpose of increasing only the Defendant’s fee interest and business performance, was excessively repeated in violation of the Plaintiff’s duty of loyalty to the Plaintiff. As a result, the Plaintiff sustained damages of KRW 143,441,798 (i.e., the assessed value of the Plaintiff’s assets as of July 1, 2014 - KRW 156,237,888 (i.e., the assessed value of the Plaintiff’s assets as of July 1, 2014).

3) Therefore, the Defendant, as the employer of B, is jointly and severally liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the amount of KRW 267,564,655 (i.e., KRW 124,122,857 +143,441,798) and the delay damages therefrom, pursuant to Article 756 of the Civil Act.

B. Whether the trade constitutes a voluntary trade

However, as seen earlier, although it is recognized that B prepared a written statement of this case to the effect that B had acknowledged the Plaintiff a voluntary trading on August 27, 2014 while making a transaction using the instant account, it is insufficient to recognize that B had made a voluntary stock transaction without the Plaintiff’s consent or delegation during the said period as alleged by the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

Rather, in light of the following circumstances that are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the aforementioned basic facts, the evidence mentioned above, and each of the statements set forth in Eul-B and Eul-B, 5 through 9, and 12, the Plaintiff is deemed to be a day-to-day comprehensive, explicitly or implicitly, with respect to stock transactions using the instant account. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

① On May 20, 2014, B: (a) on the Plaintiff, “general investment, investor tendency itself is allowed to be registered as another trading for the purpose of realizing profits through active trading; (b)”, “a risk reduction is to be registered to the extent that a certain degree of profit arises from the investment principal, to the extent that a certain degree of profit is incurred; and (c) in the case of the redemption of funds and ETF, the request for the sale of funds is completed on the first day or the second day of the following week; and (d) in all accounts, the Plaintiff shall not immediately go beyond the stock account to the CMA account, and shall again go beyond the money to the CMA account, and the Plaintiff shall have consented thereto once again.

1. ② After May 26, 2014, B explained the procedures, etc. for transferring the funds of financial products purchased or terminated to the instant account via the CMA account. The Plaintiff directly entered the password, etc. in accordance with the Defendant’s guidance and transferred the funds for repurchase or termination of existing financial products to the instant account.

③ 또한 B은 2014. 5. 26. 원고에게 "매달 한 번 잔고를 끊어서 방문해서 안내하겠 다.", "중간에 운영평가 등을 준비해서 자주 찾아뵙고 연락드리겠다."라고 말하였고, 원 고는 B에게 추가 자금을 이 사건 계좌로 넣으면 되는지 문의하기도 하였다.

④ From May 2014 to January 2015, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff, by electronic mail, the details of transactions and balance using the instant account from the end of each month (excluding July 2014). From June 2, 2014 to October 13, 2014, the Plaintiff also accessed HTS over several occasions and confirmed the current status of assets by account.

⑤ Each of the instant statements appears to have been prepared within the meaning of having the intent to compensate the Plaintiff for the unexpected breadth of stocks purchased by the Plaintiff (Article 55 of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act) (Article 55 of the same Part and Capital Markets Act prohibits executives and employees of a financial investment business entity from performing in advance promising to compensate for all or part of the losses they may sustain in their own accounts, and from compensating for all or part of the losses they may sustain after the fact (Article 55 (1) 1). Each of the instant agreements constitutes an agreement to compensate for losses in violation of the aforementioned provisions (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da2129, Jan. 24, 2003).

(c) Whether it constitutes an over-the-counter transaction and the scope of recognition;

1) Relevant legal principles

With respect to the conclusion that a securities company has entered into an all-inclusive discretionary trading agreement with a customer, where such employee causes damage to a customer by performing an excessive trading in violation of his/her duty of loyalty, such as the interest of the customer, etc., the act of excessive trading is established as a tort. In such cases, whether an employee of a securities company has committed an excessive trading in violation of his/her duty of loyalty shall be determined on the basis of whether the employee committed an excessive trading in violation of his/her duty of loyalty to the customer account; the motive and circumstance leading up to the trading of stocks; the period and frequency of the trading; the amount of the purchased stocks; the average period of holding the stocks; the ratio of the purchase and sale of the same stocks; the ratio of the purchase and sale of the same stocks to the number of the stocks; whether the same stocks were repeated; the interest after deducting the expenses such as the commission; the ratio of the fee to the amount of damages; and whether the short-term trading requires more than 20 copies of the stocks trading to the extent that the transaction was established during a certain period of 00-year period of time.

2) Determination

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the facts acknowledged as above and the evidence mentioned above, B is deemed to have inflicted damage on the Plaintiff by performing a dystyp transaction with the Plaintiff’s interest by violating the duty of loyalty to the Plaintiff on August 7, 2014 immediately after the sale of the remaining gyspble stocks. Thus, B’s stock transaction conducted through the account of this case within the same period of time was established as an over-the-counter transaction (the Defendant did not dispute as to the fact that the share transaction during the above period constitutes an over-the-counter transaction) and a tort is established as a tort (the Defendant is liable for the employer under Article 756 of the Civil Act as the employer of B). This part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is with merit within the scope of recognition as above.

① The Plaintiff asserts that the share transaction after July 1, 2014, which came to recognize the voluntary purchase and sale of B, constitutes an over-the-counter transaction. However, as described in attached Table 1 and 2, the share transaction in B had not been previously conducted on July 2014, as stated in attached Table 1 and 2, and the sale in whole of the remaining luminous shares on August 7, 2014 was due to unexpected price fluctuation of the existing luminous shares. Therefore, it is difficult to deem that the transaction was an over-the-counter transaction (the previous transaction was mainly focused on the purchase of the remaining luminous shares, and cannot be deemed an over-the-counter transaction).

② On August 7, 2014, B repeated a large number of regular transactions without any special reason from the date on which the stocks in this case were sold. As a result, the monthly turnover rate of the instant account (=161% on August 8, 2014, approximately 3137% on September 2014, approximately 3462% on October 2014, approximately 4634% on November 2014, approximately 1973% on December 393, 2014, and about 393% on January 5, 2015 (However, the monthly turnover rate of January 2015) seems to have been relatively low.

③ As a result, the balance of the instant account from August 123, 2014 to KRW 280,05 to KRW 12,778,981 on January 5, 2015, the Plaintiff suffered a loss of KRW 110,272,299 on a five-month basis. On the other hand, the Defendant, while 35,416,069 during the same period, made a revenue of KRW 32% on the fee ( approximately 32% on the investment loss).

3. Extent of and limitation on liability for damages.

A. Relevant legal principles

Property damage caused by an excessive trade refers to the difference between the property status that existed without an excessive trade had been caused by an unlawful harmful act and the property status difference between the end of the excessive trade. Since an excessive trade is the requirement for establishing an account control of a customer by a securities business entity, such as an agreement on comprehensive discretionary trade, etc., even without an excessive trade, it shall be deemed that the initial deposit remains, but the normal discretionary trade by the securities business entity was made not by the excessive trade. Therefore, if the price fluctuations during the excessive trade period, barring any special circumstance, it is reasonable to view that a change in the property status occurred without an excessive trade, even if there was no excessive trade, there was a change in the market value due to a change in the share price. Therefore, the normal transaction status that existed without an excessive trade, should be reflected in the investment risk in the event of an excessive trade. Accordingly, the difference between the normal sale and the stock price fluctuation rate, etc., at the time of commencement of the excessive trade, and the amount at the time of the current trade and the balance after deducting the amount expected to have accrued from the actual trade (the balance).

However, in fact, it is extremely difficult to accurately estimate 'normal losses or transaction expenses that may have occurred in the event that a trading was conducted only based on statistical data such as the fluctuation in stock market due to the diversity of individual stock transactions and the fluctuation in stock market. As such, in calculating damages according to the above method, the court which determines the final amount of damages to be borne by the interested parties should consider such special circumstances in the pertinent transaction. In addition, in case of calculating damages according to the above method, there is a need to adjust the liability for damages in consideration of such special circumstances in the pertinent transaction, and in case of a case, it is calculated by the difference between 'the account attitude at the beginning of the over-the-counter trading and 'the account balance at the end of the over-the-counter trading' and 'the account balance at the time of the over-the-counter trading', and even in case where a trading was conducted on a normal basis, it may not be determined within the reasonable scope of 400 square meters by taking into account the circumstances such as the equivalent commission and the overall decline in stock market (see, 2007).

B. Determination

Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, as seen earlier, the balance of the account in this case is KRW 123,051,280 as of August 7, 2014 immediately after B sold non-definite stocks on or after August 7, 2014; and the final balance on March 16, 2015, which the Plaintiff sought after January 5, 2015, is KRW 12,796,090, the difference is 110,25,190, and the difference is 110,25,190, suffered by the Plaintiff due to the instant overfinite trade.

However, the difference in the balance is inevitably included in the transaction cost or loss due to normal investment. ② The investor invests in his own judgment and responsibility, and in principle, the loss or profit is attributed to the investor. The Plaintiff does not properly manage and supervise the detailed transaction details and profit-making situation even after conducting a comprehensive discretionary sale to B. ③ The Plaintiff neglected the transaction details and profit-making status through HTS inquiry, etc. even though it was possible for the Plaintiff to easily verify the transaction details and profit-making status, etc., and even after recognizing the fact that the loss was caused by the inappropriate transaction, the Defendant’s liability against the Plaintiff is limited to 60%.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the Defendant jointly with the Plaintiff KRW 66,153,114 (=110,255,190 x 60%) and the Defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at each rate of 15% per annum under the Civil Act from January 5, 2015, which is the final transaction date in B, until September 8, 2017, where it is deemed reasonable for the Defendant to dispute as to whether the Defendant is obligated to perform the obligation and on the charge, and on the charge, from January 5, 2015, the final transaction date in B.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition and is dismissed as it is without merit. Since the part of the judgment of the court of first instance which accepted the plaintiff's claim in excess of the above execution order is unfair, it is revoked partially by the defendant's appeal and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part is dismissed. The defendant's remaining appeal of this case and the plaintiff's incidental appeal are dismissed as they are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Kim Jin-hwan

Western Major;

is a program that can be operated.

2) The Plaintiff’s assertion is not consistent, and the contents stated in the military petition are deemed to be the Plaintiff’s final assertion.

Details of stock trade

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

[Attachment 2]

14082 1093 1110

37(C)/(3) of the intermediate sale loss + 84 purchase commission for the end of the month + the attempted monthly amount, the outstanding amount, and the outstanding amount (1)