2. Each of the plaintiffs' primary claims and each of the conjunctive claims against the plaintiff EP EP and MPP Co., Ltd. and the remainder of the plaintiff Samco Co., Ltd. are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of litigation, the portion arising between the Plaintiff EFE and the Defendant Korean Bank is assessed against Plaintiff EFE, Plaintiff EFE, and the portion arising between Plaintiff EFE and the Defendant Korean Bank is assessed against Plaintiff EFE, Plaintiff MPC Co., Ltd., Plaintiff Samco Co., Ltd., and the part arising between Plaintiff CFE and Defendant Han Bank. The remainder is assessed against Plaintiff CFE, and Defendant Han Bank, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

A. Status of the parties

1) Plaintiff EPS Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff EPS”) is a small and medium enterprise that engages in the manufacture, sale, etc. of semiconductor-related products. Plaintiff MPP Co., Ltd. (former trade name: Heavy Chemical Co., Ltd.; hereinafter “Plaintiff MPP”) is a small and medium enterprise that engages in light-made fiber manufacturing, machinery manufacturing, and polyethylene manufacturing, etc.; Plaintiff CP Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff CP”) receives US currency (USD”) through export transactions, both of which are a small and medium enterprise that engages in manufacturing electronic equipment and precision machinery parts manufacturing, etc.

2) The Defendants (hereinafter the Defendants’ National Bank is “Defendant National Bank,” and Defendant Han Bank is “Defendant Han Bank”) is a bank at the time of conducting banking business, including receipt of deposits and issuance of securities, with authorization from the Financial Services Commission pursuant to the Banking Act.

B. Conclusion of a currency option contract between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants

The Plaintiffs entered into a currency option contract with the Defendants (hereinafter referred to as “instant currency option contract”) as stated in [Attachment 1], [Attachment 2], and [Attachment 3] (hereinafter referred to as “instant currency option contract”, and when classification is necessary, it shall be specified as the name of the Plaintiff or the date of conclusion). The Plaintiffs and the Defendants collectively refer to all the instant currency option contract concluded by the Plaintiffs and the Defendants.

(c) Background, etc. of the appearance of currency options products.

(i) the background of the appearance of KIKO currency options products;

A) Export companies, including the plaintiffs, receive export prices in foreign currency, such as US dollars. Since the value of foreign currency in foreign currency changes from time to time, there is a need to avoid exchange risk (hedge and hedging). Accordingly, exporters trade currency derivatives to avoid exchange risk. Accordingly, in the past, the basic monetary derivatives (1) currency forward transaction (1), or (2) currency forward transaction (2) currency forward transaction (in the past, a simple gift exchange), or (3) currency forward in the future, etc. were used, and in the case of put options, which are rights to sell foreign currency at a certain price at a certain time in the future, they did not widely use put options, which are rights to sell foreign currency at a certain price at a certain price.

B) However, around 2005, at the trend where the exchange rate (hereinafter “exchange rate”) drops, the currency option product (hereinafter “KIKO option product”) whose basis is the forward exchange rate (hereinafter “the forward exchange rate”) was entered in the forward exchange rate (hereinafter “the forward exchange rate”) and subsequently, from the export company’s position, the currency forward transaction would have to bear any loss equivalent to the swap point even if the currency forward transaction was made from the export company’s position. As the exchange rate was close to or lower than the quarterly level of profit and loss, there was a demand for the goods that guarantee the exchange rate higher than the forward exchange rate or market exchange rate. Accordingly, there was a need for the goods that guarantee the exchange rate higher than the forward exchange rate (hereinafter “the forward exchange rate”) in a way that adds a certain condition to the forward exchange rate, the two parties, the two parties, the two parties, and the currency option product (hereinafter “KIKO option product”). Accordingly, the condition added to the auction auction agreement.

(ii) additional conditions;

A) Terms and conditions of the resale agreement (Knock-Out)

If the maturity exchange rate falls below the maturity exchange rate set up on put options purchased by an exporting company from a bank, the exchange rate is high instead of limiting the profits of the exporting company to a certain extent by extinguishing all put options or put options contracts. However, in the case of certain contracts with A/B wave structure, it is possible to set up a condition for the resale agreement with a bank to set up in BP options which are received by the bank.

(B) Terms and conditions of the respondent(Knock-in).

In the call option sold by an exporting company to a bank by establishing a condition for a settlement agreement with the export company, which is a settlement agreement, the obligation due to the exercise of the company's call options is limited to a case where the maturity exchange rate is more than one time than the exchange rate, a settlement agreement with the export company. In this case, the risk range of the exporting company is limited to more than a certain exchange rate, and the exchange rate is lower than the case where the conditions for the settlement agreement with the export company are not set.

C) The conditions of recreation

By making the call option contract amount of the bank more than the company's put option contract amount, the exchange rate of the exercise is higher than the company's put option contract amount.

3) Each currency option contract of this case

A) Each currency option contract of this case concluded between Plaintiff EPS and America with each Defendant’s national bank is the same as the most basic form among currency option products (Winow KOKI Titt Form) that raise the event price by adding the following conditions: (a) the instant currency option contract of this case, which is concluded between Plaintiff EFS and America, to the respective Defendant’s national bank; and (b) the following basic rights and obligations under the above contract, which are concluded between the export company and the financial institution.

(1) During the observation period, in the event that the market exchange rate falls short of the paid exchange rate, a contract corresponding to that period is terminated.

(2) In the event that the market exchange rate does not fall short of the market exchange rate set during the observation period, if the market exchange rate at maturity falls short of the market exchange rate set forth in the two-year relationship, the said Plaintiffs may exercise put options, thereby selling the contract amount to Defendant National Bank. If the market exchange rate at maturity is higher than the market exchange rate, the said Plaintiffs may sell the contract amount to Defendant National Bank without exercising put options against Defendant National Bank.

(3) When the market exchange rate is more than once during the observation period, when the market exchange rate is more than the exchange rate, the call option of the Defendant’s National Bank occurs, and when the market exchange rate at maturity is higher than the exchange rate at the event, the Defendant’s National Bank may exercise the call option to the said Plaintiffs and purchase two times the contract price at the exchange rate.

B) The contents of the basic rights and obligations pursuant to the instant currency option contract (Window Wides Roget Fo) concluded by the Plaintiff Samco with Defendant Hana Bank are as follows.

(1) During the observation period, in the event that the market exchange rate falls short of the paid exchange rate, a contract corresponding to that period is terminated.

(2) In the event that the market exchange rate does not fall on a one-time basis below the market exchange rate during the period of observation, if the market exchange rate at maturity is lower than the market exchange rate during the period of observation, the Plaintiff Samco may exercise put options, thereby selling the contract amount to Defendant Han Bank. If the market exchange rate at maturity is higher than the market exchange rate at which it is exercised, the contract amount may be sold without exercising put options to Defendant Han Bank.

(3) In the event that the market rate at maturity is above the two-dimensional exchange rate, the Defendant Han Bank may purchase two times of the contract amount at the exchange rate by exercising the call options to Plaintiff Samco.

(d) The trend of fluctuations in the exchange rate;

[Attachment 1]

A person shall be appointed.

The exchange rate based on the sale-based rate is the highest 1,010.4 won per year around 2006 and the lowest 913.0 won per year around 2006. However, the major change range was 920 won to 920 won and 980 won, which led to a trend that continuously drops between 920 won and 980 won. In addition, in the year 2007, the exchange rate was the highest 952.3 won per year and the lowest 89.6 won, which was the highest 52.7 won.

In addition, it was difficult to find a specific prediction that the exchange rate will continuously decline in the year 2008 by the national or private research institutes, the majority of experts, domestic and foreign financial institutions, etc. at the time, and that the exchange rate will rapidly rise since 2008.

However, the exchange rate based on the sale-based rate was KRW 940 on March 18, 2008. From March 18, 2008 to April 2008, the exchange rate was 1,000 won or less, up to the end of April 2008, up to the end of August 1, 2008, the exchange rate was 1,100 won or less from September 2008 to the end of August 1, 2008. However, after the rapid increase, the exchange rate was 1,200 to the end of October 2008, and 1,200 to the end of May 1, 2010 to the end of May 2010.

E. The Plaintiffs’ performance of their duties under each currency option contract of this case

After the conclusion of the instant currency option contract, the exchange rate of exchange is gradually increased, and the Plaintiffs were obligated to sell USD 2 times the amount of each put option contract to the Defendants at the exchange rate. As such, the Plaintiffs were obligated to sell to the Defendants at the exchange rate. As can be seen, from the total amount of the market price for each due date and the difference in the exchange rate during which the Plaintiffs actually paid to the Defendants by performing the duty to sell twice the contract, the amount obtained by deducting the money paid by the Plaintiffs from the Defendants under each of the instant currency option contract is KRW 1,789,878,00 for the Defendant National Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant National Bank”), KRW 893,840,00 for the Defendant National Bank (hereinafter “Defendant National Bank”), KRW 1,834,560,00 for the Defendant Han Bank (hereinafter “Defendant Han Bank”).

【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap 1, 2, 3, 26, 47, 50, 65 through 67, Eul 1, 2, 3, Eul 6 (including each number, if any), the testimony of non-party 3, 4, and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. Summary of the plaintiffs' claims

(a) the primary claim - A claim for restitution of unjust enrichment due to the invalidation, cancellation, or rescission of a contract;

① The instant currency option contract is invalid in violation of the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions (amended by Act No. 10169, Mar. 22, 2010; hereinafter “Terms and Conditions Regulation Act”) inasmuch as the interest expected between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants is imbalanced, the Plaintiffs burden excessive loss risk, and thus, cannot achieve the purpose of the foreign currency hedging product. ② In addition, the Defendants deceptioned the Plaintiffs on the future exchange rate fluctuations and options premium or caused any mistake, and thus, the instant currency option contract was revoked upon delivery of a copy of the instant complaint containing the Plaintiffs’ declaration of revocation. ③ The instant currency option contract was revoked, and ③ the inherent change in exchange rate inherent in KRW / US exchange rate, which is an objective circumstance, was considerably changed, and the instant subjective act was lost by the parties’ subjective act that would change within a certain scope, and thus, the instant copy was rescinded (e.g., cancellation) by delivery of a copy of the complaint containing a declaration of intent to cancel (i.e., cancellation) due to changes in circumstances.

Therefore, the Defendants were deemed to have obtained unjust enrichment from the Plaintiffs under each currency option contract of this case. As such, the Defendant’s National Bank, Inc., as a return of unjust enrichment, is obligated to pay to Plaintiff EFE amounting to KRW 1,789,878,00, KRW 893,840,000, and KRW 893,840,000, Defendant Han Bank, Inc., and KRW 1,834,560,00, as part of the claim, and delay damages therefrom.

(b) Preliminary Claim - Claim for Damages due to tort

① In light of the purpose of exchange hedging, each currency option contract of this case has no effect on exchange hedging, and has a structure inappropriate for exchange hedging, and is not a product suitable for exchange hedging because there is no device to protect customers for preventing risks, the Defendants violated the suitability principle by soliciting the Plaintiffs as a foreign currency hedging product. ② In addition, the Defendants breached their duty to explain, such as providing an unfair solicitation act against the Plaintiffs, providing a conclusive judgment on exchange rate lower, and providing a false explanation on individual risk and potential loss, and ③ breached their duty to protect ex post customers by neglecting the Plaintiffs’ expansion of loss.

The above Defendants’ violation of their obligation to protect customers constitutes tort against the Plaintiffs. As such, the Defendants are liable to compensate for damages suffered by the Plaintiffs due to the tort, Defendant National Bank is obligated to pay to Plaintiff EFE for the amount of KRW 1,789,878,00, KRW 893,840,000, and Defendant Han Bank is obligated to pay to Plaintiff EFE for the amount of KRW 1,834,560,00, as stated in their respective claims.

We examine the contents of the plaintiffs' claims in the order of their claims.

3. Judgment as to the main claim

A. Determination as to the assertion that unfair terms and conditions are invalid

1) Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

A) Each currency option contract of this case is a standardized form with the basic contents on the conditions of exercise of each option, contract amount, exercise price, settlement method, payment terms, etc. for a large number of small and medium-sized exporters including the Plaintiffs. The contents of the contract are characterized as a standardized contract under the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions.

B) However, the Plaintiffs merely acquired put options through the instant currency option contract, and thus, exposed to exchange risk in an area subject to protection from exchange loss, and the Defendants, financial institutions, neglected their duty of good faith and public interest by not complying with the Plaintiffs’ intent for exchange hedging due to being exposed to new risks, such as rapid increase in exchange rates, and neglecting their duty of good faith and public interest. As such, each of the instant currency option contract was unfair in breach of the principle of good faith. (ii) there is a significant imbalance between the expectation profit, i.e., put options and call options, which are the customers and banks, under the instant currency option contract, and each of the instant currency options contract’s values are considerably different from those of the companies under the KIKO currency option contract. (iii) When considering the fact that the instant currency option contract’s value is considerably different from those of the companies under the instant currency option contract, each of the instant currency option contract’s inherent loss or damage to each of the instant companies, which would result in unfair exchange loss due to the Plaintiff’s occurrence of unfair exchange risk.

C) Therefore, each currency option contract of this case is null and void in light of the principle of good faith as stipulated in Article 6(1) of the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions.

2) Determination

A) Determination as to whether each currency option contract of this case constitutes a standardized contract

The term "a contract terms and conditions" refers to "a contract terms and conditions, regardless of its name, form or scope, which becomes the contents of a contract prepared in advance by one party to the contract to enter into a contract with a large number of other parties" (Article 2 (1) of the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions). Since the contract terms and conditions are subject to negotiation between one party and the other party in a specific contract, they do not fall under the terms and conditions subject to the regulation of the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da74863, Feb.

However, in full view of the statements in Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 27, 33, 39, Eul evidence 5 (including each number number), and the testimony and the whole purport of oral argument of the witness Eul evidence 3, 4, and 2 among the contents of each currency option contract of this case, the contract amount, exercise exchange rate, exchange rate which is one of the major contract terms of the instant currency option contract of this case, and the exchange rate which is one of the two parties, and the respondent's exchange rate which is one of the parties to the instant currency option contract, and the contract period, etc. are acknowledged to have been determined by individual negotiations, and the structure of the instant currency option contract of this case (the option value, the plaintiffs' losses risk, and exchange hedging etc.) is the product itself the purpose of the instant currency option contract of this case where the above structure is determined to enter into a contract with the goods, but this does not constitute a standardized contract of this case in light of the fact that the above major contract terms determined by the plaintiffs and the defendants are completed.

B) Determination as to whether a customer is unfairly disadvantageous to the plaintiffs

(1) As seen earlier, the provisions of the instant currency option contract do not fall under the terms and conditions. However, in addition, this study examined whether the provision on the structure of the instant currency option contract is unreasonably unfavorable to the Plaintiffs, a customer of the instant currency option contract. Of the provisions on the structure of each of the instant currency option contract, ① The instant currency option contract is designed to create the theoretical value of put options acquired by the Defendants compared to the theoretical value of put options acquired by the Plaintiffs, and its value is imbalances. ② The Plaintiffs’ put options are attached with the conditions of put options, and thus, the Plaintiff’s losses are limited due to the decline in exchange rate below the set-term exchange rate or the termination of a contractual relationship. On the other hand, the Plaintiff’s losses may be extended as it did not exist in the case of an increase in exchange rate above the set-term exchange rate. ③ When the market conversion rate falls under the exchange rate below the lower exchange rate, each of the instant currency options contract can be deemed to be partly avoided and partly avoided to the Plaintiffs.

(2) However, in order to determine whether a contract provision has lost fairness, the overall content of the contract should be comprehensively taken into account not only the content of the contract provision itself, but also the content of the individual agreement included in the same contract, and the mutual relationship with other contract provisions. In particular, in a case where the profit or loss of a contracting party, such as the instant contract, is directly connected to an indefinite element such as future exchange rate fluctuations, and a quid pro quo relationship, which is the content of the contract, is formed based on the probability and prediction of such dynamic elements and the overall assessment of the degree of risk acceptance, the fairness of the contract cannot be determined retroactively based on the circumstances ex post facto realization, and whether the contract term has been reasonably formed as at the time of the conclusion of the contract. Therefore, if it is deemed unfair at the time of the conclusion of the contract, it cannot be considered ex post facto, even if the contract provision causes significant disadvantage to customers pursuant to the said contract provision, in principle, whether the contract provision is fair or not.

(3) However, considering the following circumstances, it is difficult to see that the provisions of each currency option contract of this case significantly lose fairness, and it cannot be said that the contract provisions are unreasonably unfavorable to customers or are not limited to essential rights under the contract so that they can not achieve the purpose of the contract. Accordingly, the plaintiffs' assertion on this part is without merit.

(A) Determination as to whether a contract that does not meet the customer’s intent

As examined in Section 4. A. 3, as seen earlier, KIKO option products, such as the instant currency option contract, are “Partial exchange risk avoidance goods” in order to avoid the exchange risk of “a certain scope” during a certain period of time”. As such, it shall be deemed that the said currency option products meet the customer’s demand to enjoy the utility of the structure of the instant currency option contract.

(B) Determination as to whether the Defendants neglected their duty of good faith and public interest

However, the contract provision cannot be deemed unfair solely on the ground that the Defendants neglected their duty of good faith and public interest and solicited them without adequately explaining the inappropriate goods.

(C) Determination as to whether the option value is significantly imbalanced

According to the overall purport of evidence Nos. 41, 42-1, 42-1, and 2-1, 36, 355,425 won in put options which the Plaintiff acquired in the instant currency option contract between the Plaintiff EPS and the Defendant IB, 69,302,117 won in put options, and 22,16,974 won in put options acquired by the Plaintiff in the instant currency option contract between the Plaintiff CB and the Defendant IB, and 36,18,656 won in put options, and 36,18,656 won in put options acquired by the Plaintiff in exchange for the instant currency option contract between the Plaintiff CB and the Defendant IB, the theory of put options acquired by the Plaintiff in exchange for the instant currency option contract between USD 12,349, and 309,309,305,309,305, 25, and 309,35, etc., of put options acquired by the Plaintiff.

However, inasmuch as each of the instant currency options, which are added with the following conditions, are higher in exchange rates compared to the instant currency forward transaction, and rather than guaranteeing the effect of exchange in favor of the plaintiffs by establishing the conditions for the instant currency options, the instant currency option contract is set up under the conditions for the instant currency option, and instead of guaranteeing the effect of exchange in favor of the plaintiffs, the theory of put forward options is reduced due to the conditions for the instant currency option, but the plaintiffs are not reflected in the theoretical value of put forward options, i.e., profits arising from the exchange rate higher than the futures exchange rate at the time of the contract, i.e., exchange profits arising from the instant exchange rate, which are not reflected in the theoretical value of put forward options, which are set up by the conditions for the instant currency option. As such, the theory of put options does not reflect all the economic benefits that the plaintiffs gain through the instant currency option contract. Therefore, it is difficult to determine whether each of the instant currency option is unfair by comparing the theory of put options and put options.

In addition, the Defendants may be deemed to have received the difference between put options and call options as the commission for the instant currency option contract. As such, the Plaintiffs asserted that it is unreasonable to impose the commission for each of the instant currency option contracts depending on the difference between the theoretical value of put options, and accordingly, according to the overall purport of each of the certificates of No. 15, No. 16, 18, 19, 24, 25, and 26 (including each number in case of virtual numbers), the commission that the Defendants acquired through each of the instant currency option contracts is composed of the expenses and net profits. It is recognized that the said expenses include credit risk management expenses, dynamic hedge cost, and business cost, and that the Defendants are not subject to any change in the rate of exchange that would be exempt for all of the instant currency option contracts, and that it is reasonable to impose a certain amount of expenses that the Defendants would have no choice than that of the instant currency option contracts, and that the Defendants would have no choice but to be subject to any change in the rate of trust risk management expenses x 3 of each underlying asset transaction.

Therefore, the essence of the instant currency option contract can be seen as exchange because, unlike monetary forward transaction, exchange risk insurance, interest rate swap transaction, etc., it cannot be based on the theoretical value of put options, rather than the contract price. As seen earlier, the theory of put options does not reflect all economic benefits. As such, it is reasonable that the Defendants calculated based on the total contract amount of put options, which serves as the basis for companies including the Plaintiffs, such as credit risk management costs, dynamic hedge costs, etc. However, the lower rate of each currency option contract of this case is about 0.41% (41bp) through 0.98% (98bp) as stated below, and such lower rate cannot be seen as considerably excessive rate of put options than 16 through 19 (including numbers).

The difference between put options and put options options (date of conclusion) contained in the main text =A total contract amount = 27,946,692 won = 6,802,560,000 won = 0.41% (41b) 14,001,682 won x 5,429,400,000 won (50,0000 x 12 months x 94.80), USD 20.25% ($ 252,408,400) x 308,408.40 ($ 200,000 x 12 months x 904,904.90) x 208,408.304,304,3004,408 x 3004,408.84,000 ($ 20,207).

Therefore, just because there is a difference between the theory of put options and put options, the instant currency option contract cannot be deemed significantly unfair.

(D) Determination as to whether an excessive risk of loss (VaR) is borne

However, according to the statements in the evidence No. 60-1 and No. 2, Nonparty 5’s professor calculated NA, “the maximum loss amount that may arise under a given trust level during a given period,” with respect to KIKO currency option products, the fact that the company’s maximum loss amount is more than 200 times more than the bank’s maximum loss amount. However, according to Nonparty 5 professor’s view, it is only the result of simply calculating the maximum loss amount of KIKO currency option contract itself without considering the US currency option’s basic assets held as above, and considering the above evidence and evidence No. 24 as well as the overall purport of arguments and arguments, VAR calculated risks at the overall level of each financial institution or company, and its application can occur under individual contracts, and in particular, it can be acknowledged that the Plaintiffs would not be able to fully deduct the underlying asset’s profit from the currency option contract’s underlying assets, etc. based on the circumstances that the Plaintiffs would not have an opportunity to purchase the currency option contract’s underlying assets.

(E) Determination as to whether it is impossible to achieve the objective of the exchange hedge good

In terms of reference, Article 6(2)3 of the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions provides that “a clause that limits essential rights of a contract to the extent that it is impossible to achieve the purpose of the contract” is presumed to be unfair. The term “the purpose of the contract” or “the essential rights of the contract” stipulated in the above provision refers not to the party’s subjective intent, purpose, or purpose, but to the performance or realization of performance or consideration under the contract. In addition, each of the instant currency options is intended to avoid all risks arising from exchange rate decline, not to avoid all risks arising from exchange rate decline, but to avoid exchange rate decline and to avoid exchange risk by taking into account various factors affecting the contract conditions, such as the exercise of options. In addition, the Plaintiffs are not able to avoid exchange risk only to the extent that they are likely to cope with the risk by themselves and to avoid exchange risk to the extent that they are not able to avoid exchange risk with the knowledge of the effect of exchange fluctuation in each of the instant currency options at the time of exchange rate fluctuation.

B. Determination as to the assertion on cancellation of a contract on the grounds of deception or mistake

1) Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

In the process of concluding each currency option contract of this case, the Defendants could not avoid exchange risk upon the fulfillment of the conditions for a subsequent B/L contract, and upon the fulfillment of the conditions for a subsequent B/L contract of this case, the Plaintiffs were charged with new risks, but they were not suitable for avoiding exchange risk, thereby deceiving the Plaintiffs as being a contract suitable for avoiding exchange risk or inducing the Plaintiffs’ mistakes. ② At the second half of 2007, the time of the conclusion of each currency option contract of this case, there was concerns over liquidity crisis around the world due to the U.S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S.C., despite the possibility of an increase in exchange rate, the Defendant knew the Defendant that there was little possibility that the exchange rate decline may occur, or caused the Plaintiffs’ mistakes. ③ Since the theory of put option acquired by the Plaintiffs compared to the objective value of put option (the theory) acquired by the Defendant under each currency option contract of this case, the Plaintiffs did not receive any difference in value or explanation.

2) Determination

A) Determination as to the assertion of deception or mistake as to the suitability for avoiding exchange risk

As examined below 4. A. 3) The KIKO option product, such as the instant currency option product, shall be deemed to be “part-time foreign exchange risk avoidance product” that seeks to avoid exchange risk at “a more favorable exchange rate” during a certain period. Thus, the structure of the KIKO currency option product itself is difficult to view it as a derivatives that is essentially inappropriate for avoiding exchange risk avoidance without considering various trade objectives, exchange rate outlook at the time of conclusion, degree of risk preference, property status, etc. Therefore, the Defendants cannot be deemed to have deceiving the Plaintiffs of the suitability for avoiding exchange risk avoidance or caused mistake by the Plaintiffs. Accordingly, this part of the Plaintiffs’ assertion is without merit.

B) Determination on the assertion of deception or mistake as to future exchange rate fluctuation prospects

(1) First of all, it is not sufficient to recognize that the testimony of Nonparty 3, 4, and 2, as to the Defendants’ deception, is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff concealed information on international financial conditions and presented a conclusive opinion on the decline in exchange rates by deception. According to the above basic facts, most of the government, domestic and foreign financial institutions, and institutions related to the instant currency option at the time of entering into the instant currency option contract, and the Plaintiffs and the Defendants anticipated a stable decline or a change in exchange rates during the contract period based on such prospects, and did not specifically anticipate that the exchange rates will rapidly increase due to a sudden change in the global financial environment. Accordingly, this part of the Plaintiffs’ assertion is without merit.

(2) Next, according to the health bond and the evidence revealed earlier, at the time of entering into the instant currency option contract, both the Plaintiffs and the Defendants anticipated that the exchange rate will decline or at least a stable change, and the Plaintiffs concluded the instant currency option contract in preparation for the decline in exchange rates. Unlike the expected exchange rate, it is recognized that the exchange rate sharply increased and that the difference between the exchange rate at the time of entering into the instant currency option and the market exchange rate would have significantly increased.

However, as we believe that there is an error in the expression of intent under Article 109 of the Civil Act, it should be deemed that there is no fact at the time of juristic act, or that there is no actual fact. Thus, if there is no expectation or expectation of an omission in the future as of the time of juristic act, it cannot be said that there is an error because there is no disagreement between the purchaser’s psychological status and that there is an omission (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 71Da2193, Mar. 28, 197; 2006Da1575, Aug. 23, 2007; 2006Da1575, etc.). Each of the instant currency contracts merely lacks the possibility of an increase in exchange rates based on the premise that there was a decrease in exchange rates or exchange rates, and thus, it is difficult to view that there is no possibility that the Plaintiffs would have an effect on the increase in exchange rates as above, as well as on the premise that there was a decrease in the terms and conditions of contracts.

Even if it may be deemed that the Plaintiffs’ outlook or forecast on exchange rate fluctuations falls under a mistake in motive motive, the motive’s mistake becomes a ground for cancelling a contract in cases where it can be deemed that such motive is incorporated into an interpretation by stating that it is the content of a contract. However, the Plaintiffs’ outlook or forecast on exchange rate fluctuations is not induced by the Defendants, but is determined by themselves based on the Defendants’ provision of information and explanation of their prospects as examined below. As such, it cannot be deemed that the Defendants’ outlook or forecast was an error in motive motive causing the Defendants’ occurrence or a mistake in common premise, and it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff’s motive for a decline or a limited increase only within a certain scope is contents of a conclusive contract. Accordingly, this part of the Plaintiffs’ assertion is without merit.

C) Determination on the assertion of deception or mistake regarding the value of options

According to the overall purport of Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 45, 54, 59, Eul evidence Nos. 27, 32, 33, 39 (including each number), and Eul's testimony and pleading as a whole, although the theory of options acquired by the plaintiffs is low compared to the option theory acquired by the defendants according to each currency option contract of this case, the defendants were to receive an amount equivalent to the difference (including expenses, net profits) from the defendant's employees at the time of conclusion of each currency option contract of this case, it is not clearly revealed that there was such a margin in the explanation of the defendants' employees at the time of conclusion of each currency option contract of this case. The defendants merely constitute equal option value of both parties, and therefore, they concluded a contract with the plaintiffs to the effect that they are products that can avoid exchange risk without the payment of the premium (title).

However, the "catch" does not mean that the theory of each option acquired by a bank and an enterprise is the same, but it means that each contracting party pays for options through the exchange of options, and thus no separate realistic premium is paid or received. In other words, it means that no separate premium need to be paid to acquire options because the customer price of the option reflected above is the same. Meanwhile, the defendants can sufficiently anticipate the general delivery that the contract for the sale of financial products to customers with profit-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making

In addition, Article 65 subparagraph 6 (e) of the Regulations on Business Regulation for Supervision of Banking Business provides that "in the case of non-regular derivatives trading, each of the prices information (referring to the information at a level of customer transaction prices, not financial institutions trading costs) shall be provided for each of the inherent individual trading." Thus, in the case where a bank designs and sells financial products that receive a certain margin or profit from its customers on the premise that it takes over risks arising from the option trading under its own responsibility, such as the instant currency option contract, it cannot be deemed that the bank has a duty to present such margin, profit level, structure, and basis to the customer, and as recognized earlier, it cannot be deemed that the objective theory of the options of both parties in each of the instant currency option contract contains a mutual imbalance as long as it is impossible to recognize rationality. Moreover, the margin or the amount that the Defendants received through the transaction of each of the above currency option contracts does not exceed the contract amount in excess of the contract amount.

Therefore, it is difficult to see that the Defendants, when entering into the instant currency option contract, do not need to pay premium in the form of payment of separate fees, etc. in reality, and it does not indicate that the price of the options set out in the instant currency option contract is inherent in addition to the theory on the option price set out in the instant currency option contract. Moreover, it is difficult to see that the Plaintiffs misleads the Plaintiffs of any mistake or mistake in the value of the options that the Plaintiffs did not incur any economic compensation following the conclusion of the instant currency option contract, and it is difficult to see that the difference between the margin and the theory is about the important part of the contract in light of the ratio or the ratio of the difference in the contract amount to the contract amount

C. Determination on the assertion on the cancellation of a contract based on changes in circumstances

1) Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

At the time of the conclusion of each currency option contract, which is a continuous contract, the inherent change in the original/US exchange rate, which is a key variable that determines the value of put options and put options in designing the above contract, constitutes an objective situation that served as the basis of the contract. Moreover, the Plaintiffs and the Defendants concluded each currency option contract on the premise that the exchange rate is stable within a certain period of time during the contract period, and that both the Plaintiffs and the Defendants concluded the said currency option contract, which is the basis of the contract, constitutes the fundamental concept of the parties

However, since the exchange rate of KRW / US currency since the conclusion of the instant currency option contract to the extent that the parties could not have anticipated at all at the time of the conclusion of the instant currency option contract, the rise in inherent fluctuations in the currency exchange rate of KRW / US currency is also rapidly increasing, this is an essential error that seriously goes against the party’s fundamental concept at the time of conclusion of the contract that the exchange rate will change within a certain scope. If the binding force is recognized in accordance with the contract due to significant changes in objective circumstances and the loss of subjective basis for the act that the Plaintiffs could not have anticipated, the Plaintiffs suffered a serious loss in the transaction to the Plaintiffs and the Defendants, which is obviously contrary to the good faith principle, and thus, the Plaintiffs cancelled or terminated each of the instant currency option contract on the grounds that there is significant changes in objective circumstances and loss of subjective act.

2) Determination

The so-called rescission of a contract due to change in circumstances occurs due to a significant change in circumstances that the parties could not have predicted at the time of the formation of the contract, and the change in circumstances occurred due to reasons for which the party who acquired the right to cancel is not responsible, and if the binding force under the terms of the contract is recognized, it is recognized as an exception to the principle of contract observance in cases where the result is substantially contrary to the good faith principle. Here, the circumstance referred to in this context refers to an objective circumstance which served as the basis of the contract, not to mean the subjective or personal circumstance of one party. In addition, even if a circumstance which is not the basis of contract formation changes later, which results in damage by a party being unable to achieve the intended purpose of the contract at the time of the contract, barring any special circumstance, maintaining the validity of the contract as it is does not contravene the good faith principle (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da31302, Mar. 29, 2007).

In the instant case, as alleged by the Plaintiffs, in calculating the option price of each currency option contract of this case, there is no dispute between the parties that the inherent fluctuation in the exchange rate is a core variable (i.e., par value), and that such inherent fluctuation means the fluctuation presumed to have been retroactively calculated from the market price of options. In full view of the aforementioned basic facts and the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement of evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 65, 66, and 67 (including the number of pages) after the conclusion of each currency option contract of this case, after the conclusion of each currency option contract of this case, the exchange rate has increased rapidly due to the change in the economic and financial environment of the United States following the international financial crisis caused by the so-called so-called so-called "bridp base situation" of this case. Such circumstance was not easy for the parties to the instant currency option, and if the exchange rate is acknowledged as binding in accordance with the terms of each of the instant currency option, it is not reasonable for the Plaintiffs to exercise the foreign currency option contract during the remaining period of the contract.

However, in light of the following circumstances, i.e., (i) exchange rate fluctuation possibility is already premised on each currency option contract of this case or its content itself, and (ii) the Plaintiffs and the Defendants cannot be deemed to have taken over the risks when exchange rate changes vary from their respective directions to different directions; (iii) exchange rate inherent inherent fluctuations in exchange rate are linked with the fluctuation in market price of options in terms of its concept; (iv) exchange rate fluctuations are difficult to be determined by various factors, such as exchange rate, options, interest rate by currency, options, and options, which were the basis for each of the instant currency options; and (v) exchange rate fluctuations are likely to have been determined within a certain range of time when the contract price changes were made; and (v) exchange rate fluctuations within a certain range of time after all of the instant currency options are determined within a certain range of time when the instant currency option changes were made, based on the premise that there were no changes in the market price of each of the instant currency options within a certain range of time when the instant currency option changes were made.

In addition, if the binding force of each currency option contract of this case is recognized pursuant to the contract of this case, it is examined whether the exchange rate is considerably contrary to the principle of good faith, and (1) where the call option is exercised due to a rise in exchange rate above the designated exchange rate, and the plaintiffs bear the duty to sell foreign currency 2 times, if the plaintiffs are fully in kind, the plaintiffs do not incur any losses incurred in addition to the opportunity losses in reality. In addition, in the case where the losses are actually paid in kind, regardless of whether the defendants violated the principle of suitability in the process of concluding the contract of this case where the currency option contract of this case was formed, the plaintiffs should have the responsibility to compensate for the losses caused by the contract of this case, as long as the plaintiffs understand the structure of each currency option contract of this case and concluded the contract, and (2) since the defendants committed acts such as avoiding against the risks to be borne after the conclusion of each currency option contract of this case with the plaintiffs, the defendants are recognized as being subject to the cancellation of each currency option contract of this case, it does not lead to a significant violation of the good faith principle.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim on the cancellation of contract due to change of circumstances is without merit without examining whether each contract of this case constitutes a continuous contract (in the case of claim for termination).

4. Determination as to the conjunctive claim (claim for Damages Caused by Unlawful Act)

A. Determination on claims for damages caused by breach of the suitability principle and the duty to explain

1) Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

A) Violation of the suitability principle

① As a result of surveying the company’s VaR due to the currency option product, such as the instant currency option contract, the exchange hedging effect has been increased compared to VaR value at the time of failure to conclude the contract. It is possible to exchange hedging only for the part low exchange rate in some sections, and thus, the Plaintiffs are considerably inappropriate in the scope of hedging scope after the conclusion of the instant currency option contract, and may cause serious damage to the Plaintiffs. As such, each of the instant currency options contract does not conform to the purpose of exchange hedging. ② When the exchange rate falls below the exchange rate per one, the exchange hedging function would be lost, in the event that the exchange rate falls below the exchange rate per one, the exchange hedging function would be increased, and furthermore, when it comes to an increase above the exchange rate per one, the structure of the instant currency option contract itself would be unreasonable for the Plaintiffs to exchange the instant goods, such as the long-term franchise structure, e.g., exchange rate structure, and e., exchange rate structure, etc., to which the Defendants would have not acquired any other fees.

B) Violation of duty of explanation

The Defendants recommended the Plaintiffs to subscribe to the instant currency option contract without receiving a request from the Plaintiffs by means of real-time dialogue, such as visiting the Plaintiffs, and soliciting them on a private basis, and soliciting them against their customers’ will. ② In soliciting each of the instant currency option contract, the exchange rate has been anticipated to decline automatically, and the Plaintiffs, who entered into a exchange hedge contract for the purpose of avoiding risk, emphasized that the exchange rate increase is rather an opportunity for high profit, and solicited the Plaintiffs to subscribe to the said currency option contract that is highly dangerous at the time of exchange rate increase. ③ In addition, the structure of each of the instant currency option contract may incur unlimited loss, and the contract is long-term, the conditions for the instant currency option contract are met, and there is a high possibility of expanding the Plaintiffs’ losses due to the fulfillment of the conditions for the instant currency option contract. ④ The Defendants did not indicate the fact that a large amount of fees is not received, ④ did not notify the Plaintiffs of the need for early settlement in the manner of issuing the commission, and did not notify the need for early settlement in all.

C) Therefore, the Defendants are liable for damages suffered by the Plaintiffs due to their tort violating the suitability principle and duty to explain as above.

(ii) the suitability principle and duty to explain in the currency option contract;

The instant currency option contract, which is traded in the derivatives market, is a new form of contract developed by high-level high-tech financial engineering utilizing various information and expertise, such as transaction principles in foreign exchange markets, prospect of exchange rate fluctuations, appraisal of option value, etc., and can function not only as financial products for exchange risk management, but also as financial products for investment or speculation. Meanwhile, it is not easy for non-professional companies to accurately understand the contents, structure, risk, etc. of complicated contracts. Therefore, in order to make reasonable decisions and make decisions under their own responsibility, it is necessary to obtain transaction information from financial institutions that sell financial products as experts.

Therefore, in selling currency option products under the good faith principle, banks, financial experts, are obligated not to actively recommend transactions involving excessive risk, taking into account all the circumstances such as transaction purpose, transaction experience, degree of risk preference, property status, etc. of the other party company (hereinafter referred to as “conformity principle”), and the characteristics of the products, risk level, corporate experience and ability, etc. are required to clearly explain the characteristics of the products, major contents, and risks associated with the transaction to the company, and protect customers (the duty to explain).

3) Determination as to the assertion that the KIKO currency option product is inappropriate for foreign exchange hedging

The plaintiffs asserted that the KIKO currency option product, such as the instant currency option contract, not only does it conform to the purpose of foreign exchange hedging, but also its structure is not appropriate for foreign exchange hedging product, but also that the following circumstances are acknowledged in full view of the aforementioned basic facts and the overall purport of the statements and arguments of evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 9, 24, 25 (including each number, if any).

① First, since the purpose of a hedge transaction using derivative financial products lies in avoiding the risk of fluctuation in the prices of underlying assets, if an enterprise that holds foreign currencies as an underlying asset makes a monetary option transaction for the purpose of avoiding exchange risk, then there is no change in overall profits and losses because of the occurrence of exchange margin as an underlying asset in the currency option transaction itself. For example, if the Plaintiffs who concluded each of the instant currency options own USD 10,000 equivalent to the Defendants’ call option contract amount due to the increase in exchange rate above the Defendants’ exchange rate, it is difficult to enjoy exchange margin even if it was sold at the exchange rate equivalent to that of the call option contract amount due to the occurrence of exchange risk, and in particular, if the currency option transaction was made for the purpose of avoiding exchange risk without holding foreign currency assets, then there is no difference between exchange rate and the underlying asset price increase, namely, if it was made after the occurrence of exchange risk due to the occurrence of exchange risk, and there is no limit in terms of the terms and conditions of exchange risk.

(2) A company may, at its option, avoid risk to the whole of its underlying assets, avoid only a part of its underlying assets, and avoid risk, and furthermore, it may engage in the transactions of monetary derivatives for speculation or investment in the state of lack of underlying assets for profit. Meanwhile, given that the forecast for exchange rate fluctuations includes not only the direction of exchange rate fluctuations but also the breadth of exchange rate fluctuations, etc., an enterprise may avoid only the risk of a certain section of underlying assets, which is anticipated to have high possibility of occurrence based on exchange rate fluctuations in terms of risk management. As such, whether an enterprise avoid risk to a certain degree of underlying assets is basically a matter of self-determination at the level of risk management.

③ Unlike a monetary forward transaction, each currency option contract of this case, which is a KIKO currency option product, is exposed to exchange risk by terminating the validity of a contract in cases where the exchange rate between the maturity and the maturity falls below the exchange rate between the two parties due to a subsequent settlement agreement, and due to a subsequent settlement agreement, the exchange rate up to the maturity may avoid exchange risk only in part because it bears the duty to sell the contract amount corresponding to the set-off contract in cases where the exchange rate between the maturity and the two parties due to a settlement agreement agreement agreement. However, in cases where the exchange rate between the two parties is lower due to a settlement agreement and the exchange rate between the two parties due to a settlement agreement, the exchange rate between the two parties may avoid exchange risk within a considerable scope. However, in cases where the exchange rate between the two parties is changed above a certain scope, the exchange rate from the exchange rate is lower than the exchange rate between the exchange rate and the bank that sells the currency option, which is a subsequent settlement agreement.

④ As the exchange risk-hedging product’s duration extends, the risk of exchange rate fluctuations increases more. However, in a case where a company predicts that foreign currency will be continuously introduced for a certain period among the goods at the exchange risk-hedging for a variety of periods, and where it is anticipated that the exchange rate will change stably, it may select a long-term exchange risk-hedging product and enjoy more favorable exchange rate benefit for at least one year, and thus, there is an interest in purchasing a KIKO currency option product with a long-term franchise structure.

In addition, the structure of the KIKO option product itself is a structure that is higher than the futures exchange rate in order to guarantee the company’s “exchange rate higher than the futures exchange rate” which is more favorable to the company. In addition, the bank has designed the commission fee in accordance with the contract amount of the KIKO option. This structure gives an interest not only to increase the exchange rate for the company, but also not to pay the commission in reality when purchasing the KIKO currency option product. If the company wishes to pay a fixed amount of fee, it can purchase put options traded at a certain price and can subscribe to the futures exchange or exchange insurance in addition to the KIKO option product, so it cannot be said that the bank is obliged to provide the company with an opportunity to choose whether to pay a fixed amount of fee by notifying the company of the method of imposing the commission for the KIKO option product.

Therefore, the KIKO currency option product’s structure is “part-time avoiding exchange risk” that intends to avoid exchange risk at a more favorable exchange rate during a certain period of time. Therefore, the structure of the said currency option product is a structure of the KIKO / 100-200-200-300-300-30-30-70-70-70-70-70-70-70-70-70-70-70-70-70-70-70-70-70-70-70-70-70-70-70-70-70-70-70-70-70-70-70-70-70-70-70-70-70-70-70-70-70-70-70-70-70-70-70-70-70-70-70-70

⑤ As seen earlier, in relation to the Plaintiffs’ assertion that maximum expected loss (VR) is increased than before entering into a contract by entering into a KIKO currency option product, it is not reasonable as it also takes into account the underlying assets as well. As seen earlier, as to whether it is inappropriate for an enterprise to assume unlimited risk as a seller of call options in the said currency option product, as long as it is entered into the said product for the purpose of exchange hedge at least for the purpose of exchange hedge, companies are held in kind in foreign currency as the subject matter of the hedging, so even if the call option is exercised, the profits earned from the goods in kind and losses incurred from the exercise of the call option cannot be deemed as bearing unlimited risk.

In addition, with regard to the fact that there is no customer protection device to prevent risks of customers, such as the end-of-the-date (prevention from the unlimited expansion of losses by establishing a resale agreement set up at the exchange rate top, which is a resale agreement, and a resale agreement), the companies do not actually incur losses due to the above goods, which are additional expenditures for purchasing in kind, as long as they subscribe to KIKO currency option products for the purpose of exchange hedge and hold goods based on call options. The object of avoiding exchange risk of an exporting company is the risk caused by the decline in exchange rates. The object of avoiding exchange risk of an exporting company is the risk caused by the decline in exchange rates. The object of avoiding exchange risk is another transaction condition that restricts losses incurred to the Plaintiff within a certain scope in preparation for the possibility of a significant increase in exchange rates, the value of call options decline, and accordingly, it is difficult to view the unreasonable change in exchange rates at the time of the transaction in KIKO currency option products as the structure of the exchange rate, taking into account the possibility or the degree of decline in exchange rates at the time of the execution of exchange options.

Therefore, the KIKO option product itself cannot be deemed inappropriate for foreign exchange hedging. However, in individual transactions circumstances, the following are examined by each Plaintiff as to whether the instant currency option product is suitable for foreign exchange risk avoidance in light of the various transaction objectives, exchange rate outlook at the time of conclusion, degree of risk preference, property status, etc. of the Plaintiffs.

4) The degree of duty to explain each currency option contract of this case

First, the unfair solicitation by the Plaintiffs is prohibited under Article 49 of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, which was enforced after the conclusion of the instant currency option contract, and the said provision cannot be deemed as applicable to each currency option contract. At the time of the conclusion of the instant currency option contract, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendants’ solicitation was unlawful, such as forcing the Plaintiffs to conclude the instant currency option contract unfairly against the intent of the Plaintiffs (in the case of Plaintiff EP and Meca, the Defendant’s National Bank was not first solicited to trade the currency option product, but the said Plaintiffs’ solicitation was made first to Defendant’s National Bank for the said goods).

In addition, with regard to the contents of the duty to explain claimed by the plaintiffs, when concluding the instant currency option contract, the defendants clearly explain the characteristics, major contents, and risks associated with the transaction to the plaintiffs, and they fulfilled the duty to explain. Accordingly, whether the defendants violated the duty to explain shall be examined below.

5) Determination as to whether Plaintiff EFE violated the suitability principle and duty to explain

A) Facts of recognition

The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of Gap 1, 38, 45, 46, 47 evidence, Eul 27, 28, 29, 31, and 32 evidence (including each number), the testimony and the whole purport of the pleading by non-party 3 of the witness.

(1) Around September 1987, Plaintiff EFE was established to manufacture and sell booms for the production of semiconductor L CDs, temperature control devices, etc. Around September 1987, the export performance in 2006 was about USD 10 million, and approximately KRW 14.8 million.

(2) Although Plaintiff EFE was aware of the need for the exchange hedging on US dollars paid as the export price, there was no experience in the exchange hedging separately before the Defendant’s National Bank entered into the instant currency option contract with the Defendant’s National Bank. However, around February 2007, Plaintiff EFE examined the exchange hedging contract with the Defendant’s National Bank in order to prepare for the increase of foreign exchange rates. However, the said Plaintiff did not conclude the said exchange hedging contract with the view to a decline in the original/N exchange rate.

(3) Around February 2008, Plaintiff EFE was solicited by the Korea CFE Bank to subscribe to the KIKO option product, and there was no intent to engage in foreign exchange transactions with the said bank since it had been damaged trust at the time of such transaction with the said bank. Accordingly, Nonparty 3, an employee of the management strategy team of Plaintiff EFE, who works for the Plaintiff EFE, asked the Defendant’s National Bank to call a telephone on the part of the Defendant’s National Bank, and then asked the KIKO currency option product proposed by the Korea CFE Bank.

(4) On February 19, 2008, the non-party 6 vice-head and the non-party 7 vice-head who are employees of the headquarters of the Defendant National Bank Franchising Bank Co., Ltd., the employees of the Defendant National Bank Co., Ltd., visiting the Plaintiff EFE office to issue the "Exchange Risk Management Manual" to the non-party 3 of the Plaintiff EFE employees, and explain the above data about about one hour with respect to the original/US currency option product and the KIKO currency option product. The above "Exchange Risk Management Manual" contains various types of KIKO option product and their transaction terms (limited settlement terms), and transaction risks. In addition, the non-party 7 vice-head of the Defendant National Bank sent the Plaintiff EFE exchange rate forecast data in 2008, the exchange rate forecast data in 2008, the Internet article that the government permitted the exchange rate, and the economic outlook of the Defendant Bank, etc., citing the decline in the Plaintiff's domestic and foreign currency option contract.

(5) After that, on March 3, 2008, Nonparty 3, an employee of the Plaintiff EFE, made a call with Nonparty 7, an employee of the Defendant National Bank, to enter into the instant currency option contract. At the time, Nonparty 7, Nonparty 3, when the structure and exchange rate of the instant currency option contract was lower than the annual exchange rate, provided again that the contract is terminated, and that Plaintiff EFE is obligated to sell twice the contract amount if the exchange rate was higher than the exchange rate, which is the due process for the instant currency option contract. Nonparty 3 also understood the structure and risk of the said currency option contract and concluded the said contract.

(6) On March 27, 2008, Plaintiff E.S. submitted a business report in 2007 to the Financial Supervisory Commission and published it. The business report concerns derivatives, etc., and the contents of the instant currency option contract are indicated as follows.

(a) Matters on derivatives, etc. included in the main sentence. A. 6. Derivatives contract - The status of conclusion of derivatives contract - the export price of March 3, 2008 was subscribed to the hedge transaction goods as of March 3, 200. 1. The seller of the goods: The Government Bank 2. The Hague contract amount: USD 300,000: the terms and conditions of the contract : USD 300,000 per month; 1. The exchange rate of 954 won with the maturity of USD 300,000 (exchange rate) at 954,000 at a market rate of 30,000,000 won: < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 19542, Feb. 9, 2005; Presidential Decree No. 19094, Feb. 9, 2005>

B) Determination on whether the principle of suitability has been violated

In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the above facts, it is difficult to deem that Defendant National Bank violated the suitability principle by actively soliciting transactions involving excessive risk to the Plaintiff, taking into account all the circumstances, such as Plaintiff EP’s transaction purpose, transaction experience, degree of risk preference, property status, etc., and thus, it is difficult to deem that Defendant National Bank violated the suitability principle by concluding the instant currency option contract. The Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit, as there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

(1) As the export volume accounts for a substantial part of the sales amount, the Plaintiff E.S. first asked the Defendant’s Bank about the instant currency option contract under the very high need to manage exchange risks.

(2) Considering the direction and degree of exchange fluctuation generally anticipated at the time of entering into the instant currency option contract, it is difficult to view that the instant currency option contract was unreasonable in light of the exchange rate outlook at the time, etc., which was designed to take over risks arising from a relatively low possibility at the time of entering into the said currency option contract, and the contract term, structure, and conditions of the instant currency option contract, which was designed to enhance the exchange rate, are not unreasonable in light of the exchange rate outlook at the time. In particular, in 2007, the instant currency option contract is deemed reasonable in accordance with the exchange rate situation at the time when it is anticipated that the exchange rate will continuously decline in 208 at the time at the time of entering into the instant currency option. Moreover, even if the Defendant bank emphasized and explained the future exchange rate decline prospects to Plaintiff EFE, it was presented and explained such objective data.

(3) Plaintiff E.S. did not subscribe to the exchange hedging product except the instant currency option contract. The export price of Plaintiff E.S. was approximately KRW 10 million for the export price in 2006, and KRW 14.8 million for the export price in 2007. In light of the Plaintiff’s duty to sell twice, the total contract price of the instant currency option contract is USD 7.2 million for the exchange hedging contract in light of Plaintiff E.S. transaction purpose and financial status, etc.

C) Determination as to whether the duty to explain has been violated

According to the statements in Gap 1, Gap 45 to 48, Eul 27 evidence (including each number in the case of serial numbers), and the testimony by non-party 3 of the witness, the defendant's national bank did not specifically emphasize the risk or loss level in the event of a rapid increase in exchange rates at the time of soliciting plaintiff EFS to enter into the contract of this case. The defendant's national bank did not explicitly emphasize the risk or loss level in the event of a rapid increase in exchange rates, as long as the contract period has become long-term, and did not explain the fact that the probability of the occurrence of the contract is increased as the contract period has become long-term, and that the occurrence rate of the contract is high as the contract period has become long-term, and it was acknowledged that the contract is a rost product without clearly explaining the structure of imposing fees and the imposition of fees.

However, in full view of the following circumstances revealed by the above facts, solely based on the above facts, it is difficult to recognize that Defendant National Bank violated its duty of explanation by hindering the Plaintiff’s right formation of awareness as to the risks inevitably accompanying the transactional act by failing to sufficiently explain the characteristics of the instant currency option contract and the risks associated with the principal contents and transactions to the extent necessary to the Plaintiff. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

(1) Prior to the conclusion of the instant currency option contract, Defendant National Bank stated that, when the exchange rate falls below the exchange rate set forth in the set-off agreement, the contract is terminated, and that, when the exchange rate falls below the exchange rate set out in the set-off agreement, the two-time sales obligation takes place.

(2) As the content and structure of the instant currency option contract, in particular, as the risk, the contract is terminated when the exchange rate falls below the exchange rate set due to the instant currency option contract, and the instant currency option contract is concluded with the understanding that when the exchange rate falls above the exchange rate set up, the instant currency option contract is subject to the duty to sell twice put-in option contract. Based on such understanding, the Plaintiff Company published the content, structure, and risk of the instant currency option contract in the annual business report in 2007.

(3) Although the Defendant’s National Bank explained the Plaintiff EFS’s forecast for the decline in exchange rates, it is difficult to view that the exchange rate of the Plaintiff EFS, which had been engaged in export transactions for a long time due to the aforementioned explanation, was not absolutely increased compared to that of EFS, a mid-term mid-term judicial process, and that it concluded the instant currency option contract. In other words, Plaintiff EFS concluded the said currency option contract according to the need for exchange hedging after determining that there was a high possibility of a decline or stable change in exchange rates in the future through the Defendant’s bank’s explanation. This is also known through the announcement that Plaintiff EFS was a favorable contract only when the risk of the instant currency option contract in the annual business report in 2007 is anticipated to be changed within a certain scope, and that there was a risk of double sale in the event that the exchange rate is breadth, etc.

(4) As acknowledged earlier, as long as the Defendant National Bank is an enterprise pursuing profit-making, it is reasonable to obtain certain profits through the conclusion of the instant currency option contract, and the Plaintiff is deemed to have sufficiently anticipated such profit-making. Therefore, as long as the margin or profit received by the Defendant National Bank does not seem to be excessive compared to the instant currency option contract, it does not appear that the Defendant National Bank has an obligation to clearly explain the fact that it gains profit-making or profit-making through the instant currency option structure.

6) Determination as to whether Plaintiff Mescopic violates the suitability principle and the duty to explain

A) Facts of recognition

The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of Gap 2, 39, 49, 50, 51, 54 evidence, Eul 34 through 39 evidence (including each number in the case of additional numbers), the testimony and the whole purport of the arguments by the non-party 4, and the testimony and arguments by the non-party 4:

(1) The Plaintiff Co., Ltd. is a company that was established on February 9, 1989 and exports plastic pressure, recycling, and recycling plants overseas.

(2) Before the conclusion of the instant currency option contract, the details of the transaction of foreign currency hedging products that Plaintiff America entered into with the Defendant’s National Bank are as listed below (Attachment 3). Of them, in the “Target Form” contract in Nos. 5, the Plaintiff incurred a transaction loss due to the increase of exchange rates, and the Plaintiff’s “Target Form” contract in No. 6, obtained a transaction profit due to exchange rate decline.

US$ 1,200,000 on October 15, 2004 on the date of the due date of the No. 1 200-7 (Bae, etc.) 1,200,000 on the gift on December 9, 2004; USD 3,000 on February 15, 2005 on the gift exchange of USD 1,000 on February 22, 2005; USD 6.6,00,000 on April 28, 2006 on June 2005; USD 6.6,000 on June 28, 2005; USD 6.6,000 on the gift exchange of USD 6.6,00 on June 1, 2005; USD 6.6,000 on August 22, 2005; USD 6.6,007 on June 8, 2006.

(3) On October 26, 2007, the non-party 8, the vice-party 8, who was the employee of the Defendant’s National Bank, called to the non-party 7 division. The exchange rate shall continue to have been KRW 900,000,000,000,000,000. The above Plaintiff requested that the goods be informed about USD 310-32,000,000,000.

(4) Around October 2007, Nonparty 7, along with the head of the Guro-dong Branch of the Defendant National Bank, visited the head office of the Plaintiff Mebac, and introduced the content and structure of the KIKO options product to the Plaintiff 9 representative director of the Plaintiff Mebac, Nonparty 4 in charge of finance, etc., and provided an explanation that the exchange rate premium will decline in light of the trend of the existing exchange rate fluctuations in the case of the original/US exchange rate.

(5) On November 5, 2007, Nonparty 8 made a currency call with the Defendant’s employees Nonparty 7 to enter into the instant currency option contract. At the time, Nonparty 7, when the structure of the instant currency option contract and the exchange rate are lower than the exchange rate set out in the relationship with Nonparty 8, the contract is terminated, and the Plaintiff’s Mescis is obligated to sell twice the contract amount if the exchange rate is higher than the exchange rate set forth in the agreement with the designated parties. In particular, Nonparty 8 also understood the structure and risk of the said currency option contract and concluded the said contract.

B) Determination on whether the principle of suitability has been violated

In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the above facts, it is difficult to view that Defendant National Bank violated the suitability principle by actively soliciting transactions involving excessive risk to the above Plaintiff, taking into account all the circumstances such as Plaintiff’s transaction purpose, transaction experience, degree of risk preference, property status, etc., and it is difficult to deem that Defendant National Bank violated the suitability principle by entering into the instant currency option contract, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise. Thus, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

(1) Nonparty 8’s employees Nonparty 1, the vice-party 2, holding approximately KRW 310-3.2 million and approximately KRW 1.5 million ($5.3 million upon conversion into US dollars) to Defendant Defendant Defendant Defendant Defendant Defendant’s Bank, which requested to invite the KIKO-oriented product. Accordingly, Defendant Defendant’s bank solicited KIKO-oriented currency option product.

(2) Considering the direction and degree of exchange fluctuation generally anticipated at the time of entering into the instant currency option contract, it is difficult to view that the instant currency option contract was unreasonable in light of the exchange rate outlook at the time, etc., which was designed to take over risks arising from relatively low possibility at the time of entering into the said currency option contract, and the contract term, structure, and condition of the instant currency option contract, which was designed to enhance the exchange rate, is unreasonable in light of the exchange rate outlook at the time. In particular, in 2007, the instant currency option contract is deemed reasonable in accordance with the exchange rate situation at the time when it is anticipated that the exchange rate will continuously decline in 208 at the time of entering into the instant currency option at government, research institutes, private research institutes, and majority of experts, and domestic and foreign financial institutions, etc.

(3) Plaintiff Amerck had experience in concluding the gift exchange contract and Target Form on several occasions prior to the conclusion of the instant currency option contract, and through this experience, Plaintiff Amerck was aware that a transaction loss occurs in the event of an increase in the exchange rate, and that a transaction profit occurs in the event of a decline in the exchange rate, and that a transaction profit occurs in the event of a decline in the exchange rate.

(4) The scope of the Plaintiff’s request for exchange hedging to the Defendant Defendant National Bank is about 3.1 million US dollars and about 1.5 million US dollars ($5.3 million US dollars when conversion into US dollars). Since the total contract amount based on the call option of the instant currency option is USD 6 million, the contract amount of the instant currency option was appropriate in light of the Plaintiff’s transaction purpose, property status such as the export performance, and possibility of exercising the call option based on the future prospects of exchange rate, etc.

C) Determination as to whether the duty to explain has been violated

According to the statements in Gap 2, Eul 2, Eul 49 through 54, Eul 39, Eul 39 (including each number), and the testimony by non-party 4 of the witness, the defendant's national bank presented the possibility of a rapid and stable change in exchange rate at the time of soliciting the conclusion of the currency option contract of this case to the plaintiff Mesia, and did not specifically emphasize the risk or loss level in the event of a rapid increase in exchange rate, and did not explain the long-term contract period, that the probability of the occurrence of the following transactions is increased as the contract period has become long-term, and that the possibility of the occurrence of the following transactions is increased, and it is recognized that only the defendant Mesia product without clearly explaining the fact that the commission is imposed and the commission is imposed.

However, in full view of the following circumstances revealed by the above facts, solely based on the above facts, it is difficult to recognize that Defendant National Bank violated its duty of explanation by hindering the Plaintiff’s right formation of awareness as to the risks inevitably accompanying the transactional act by failing to sufficiently explain the characteristics of the instant currency option contract and the risks associated with the principal contents and transactions to the extent necessary to the Plaintiff. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

(1) Prior to the conclusion of the instant currency option contract, Defendant National Bank explained the contents and structure of the KIKO currency option product to Plaintiff B, and specified that the contract is terminated when the exchange rate falls below the exchange rate set forth in the B/L application, and that the two-time sales obligation takes place when the exchange rate falls below the exchange rate set forth in the B/C application.

(2) Plaintiff Amerck concluded the instant currency option contract with understanding that, in particular, the exchange rate falls below the exchange rate set due to the content and structure of the instant currency option contract, the contract is terminated, and when the exchange rate falls below the exchange rate set due to the risk, the contract takes effect, and the two times the contract amount becomes more than the exchange rate set up by the designated parties.

(3) Although the Defendant’s National Bank explained the Plaintiff’s forecast for the decline in exchange rates to the Plaintiff Meba, it shall be deemed to have presented and explained the above data on the basis of objective data. It is difficult to view that Plaintiff Meba, which had been engaged in export transactions for a long time due to the above explanation by the Defendant’s National Bank, would not absolutely increase the market exchange rate above the exchange rate, which is a series of participating parties, and that it concluded the instant currency option contract. In other words, the said Plaintiff Meba concluded the said currency option contract according to the need for exchange hedging, after determining that the said Plaintiff Meba had a high possibility of decline or stable change in exchange rates through the explanation by the Defendant’s National Bank.

(4) As acknowledged earlier, as long as the Defendant National Bank is an enterprise pursuing profit-making, it is reasonable to obtain certain profits through the conclusion of the instant currency option contract, and the said Plaintiff is deemed to have sufficiently anticipated such profit-making. Therefore, insofar as the margin or profit received by the Defendant National Bank does not seem to be excessive compared to the contract amount of the instant currency option contract, it does not appear that the Defendant National Bank has an obligation to clearly explain that it would obtain profits or profit-making through recreation structure.

7) Determination as to whether the suitability principle and the duty to explain against Plaintiff Samco were violated

A) Facts of recognition

The following facts may be acknowledged according to the statements in Gap's evidence 3, 55 through 59, 67, Eul's evidence 1, 2, 3, 7 through 11 (including each number), and the purport of Non-Party 2's testimony and pleading as a whole.

(1) The plaintiff Samco is a small and medium enterprise that produces and sells the part of the washing machines for domestic use, and is receiving $500,00 through exports. The export performance of the plaintiff Samco in 207, 2008, and 2009 (attention conversion into USD 5,00,230,2000, 5,95,510, 5, 2008, 5,980, 2009, 4,475, 695, 209, 2007, 2007, 207, 277, 631, 204, 305, and 345, 2005, excluding the export performance of the plaintiff Samco's 2006, 206, 2006, 207, 27,631, 2304, 345, 205).

(2) On May 4, 2006, when there was no transaction with the Defendant Han Bank, the Plaintiff Samco visited Nonparty 1’s head of the Seongbuk branch of the Defendant Han Bank to the office of the Plaintiff on May 4, 2006, and explained to Nonparty 2 of the said Plaintiff’s employees on the basis of the data explaining the type of monetary options for exchange hedging, such as “inward for the Targe Form,” and “inward Form,” and recommended Nonparty 1 to subscribe to the said monetary options. After that, Nonparty 1 visited Nonparty 3’s office again on November 20, 206, visited Nonparty 2, given the data explaining the kinds of monetary options products, and explained the said data.

(3) Accordingly, on January 5, 2007, the plaintiff Samco entered into an "inward for Enhanced Form" contract, the contract amount of which is USD 100,000 per month (if the exchange rate falls below KRW 927,00,000, the plaintiff Samco received KRW 13 won per USD 1,000 from the defendant Hana Bank, and if the market exchange rate is higher than KRW 927,00,000 and KRW 940,00,000, the above contract amount is 940,000,000, and if the market exchange rate is higher than KRW 940,000,000, the above contract amount is 95,000,000,000,000 won, the above contract amount is 95,000,000 won,000,000 won, and the above contract amount is 95,000,000 won,000 won.

(4) The plaintiff Samco obtained a benefit from each of the above "Enhanced Form", but in particular, in the "Enhanced Form" contract as of March 5, 2007, the plaintiff Samco obtained a total of KRW 27,332,592. Accordingly, the head of the non-party 1 branch of the defendant Han Han Bank, around October 2007, provided a description of the future exchange rate outlook, the structure and content of the KIKO currency option product, and the structure of the KIKO currency option product.

(5) After that, the Defendant Han Bank made an explanation to the Plaintiff Samco again on its subscription, and solicited the Plaintiff to enter into a currency option contract on December 20, 2007 with the Defendant Han Bank on December 20, 2007. In addition, on January 23, 2008, the Defendant Han Bank solicited the Plaintiff to enter into an additional KIKO currency option contract by explaining that the exchange rate will decline, and on January 23, 2008, the Plaintiff Samco again concluded a currency option contract with the Defendant Han Bank on January 23, 2008 (the first maturity of the currency option contract on December 20, 2007, which was the first maturity of the currency option contract on December 22, 2008).

(6) The head of the non-party 1 branch of the defendant Hana Bank submitted a review opinion twice in relation to the "Enhance Ford Form" contract and each currency option contract of this case between the plaintiff Sama Bank and the head of the defendant Hana Bank, and without any separate reference to the export performance of the plaintiff Sama Bank, only reference was made to the sales amount. The sales amount of the plaintiff Samco identified by the defendant Hana Bank was approximately KRW 10,105,000 in 2005, approximately KRW 9,585,000,000 in 206, approximately KRW 9,700,000 in 207, and the estimated sales amount was KRW 9,700,000 in 207 (in light of the current status of the principal sales, the plaintiff Samco had not only the overseas sales place but also the domestic sales place).

B) Determination on the violation of the suitability principle and the duty to explain

(1) According to the above facts, in a situation where it is highly necessary to hedge export prices, Plaintiff Samco entered into the said currency option contract with a higher exchange rate than a currency forward transaction, and there was a considerable need to enjoy more exchange gains by concluding the said currency option contract, which is similar to the said currency option contract, and Defendant Han Bank had experience in making profits through the “inward for Enhanced Form similar to the said currency option contract.” The structure and contents of the said currency option contract, in particular, Defendant Han Bank can avoid exchange risk only within a certain range of exchange rate higher than a long-term exchange rate than a long-term exchange rate, and in a case where the market exchange rate is higher than a long-term exchange rate, it is explained that the market exchange rate was sold twice the put currency contract at the exchange rate.

(2) However, given that a foreign currency option contract, such as the above currency option contract, is a product for the basic purpose of foreign exchange hedging, a bank is obliged to recommend the said currency option contract as a product for foreign exchange hedging purposes in principle. In addition, given that a foreign currency option contract is obligated to sell twice the exchange rate higher than the exchange rate, the said currency option contract is obligated to sell more than the exchange rate. Thus, in a case where a company owns a commodity in kind on the basis of the exchange option contract amount, in addition to actual loss of opportunity to obtain exchange margin, additional expenses are not incurred in purchasing the commodity in kind. However, in a case where a company does not own a commodity in kind on the basis of the exchange option contract amount and becomes a hedging, it is difficult for the company to perform its duty to sell two times through additional expenses for purchasing the commodity in kind upon the increase in exchange rate, and thus, in light of the purpose of foreign exchange hedging hedging transaction, it is difficult for the bank to actively recommend the transaction transaction in violation of its duty to explain the risk of exchange hedging transaction to its customer.

(3) Therefore, according to the above basic facts and facts established, the following circumstances can be identified.

① The Plaintiff Samco did not have been engaged in the transaction of the 'Enhanced Form' before concluding the 'Enhanced Form' contract with the Defendant Han Bank, and consistently stated that the Plaintiff Samco was able to see the profit of the Plaintiff since it is anticipated that the exchange rate will decline upon the Defendant Han Bank's recommendation to conclude the 'Enhanced Form' contract and the 'Enhanced Form' contract.

② The sum of the contract amount of the call option contract of December 20, 2007, which the Plaintiff Samco received for export, is USD 5 million per year, and the total sum of the contract amount of the call option contract of December 20, 2007, is USD 4.8 million. Thus, even though Plaintiff Samco already subscribed to the currency option contract of January 23, 2008, the total sum of the contract amount of the above two contracts was KRW 9.6 million by additionally entering into the currency option contract of January 23, 2008, and this would have been placed in the state of OB when compared to the export price.

③ The Plaintiff’s currency option contract was previously entered into with Nonparty 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 2’s non-party 2’s non-party 2’s non-party 2’s non-party 2’s non-party 2’s non-party 2’s non-party 2’s non-party 2’s non-party 2’s non-party 1’s non-party 2’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 2’s non-party 2’s non-party 1’s non-party 2’s non-party 1’s non-party 2’s non-party 1’s non-party 207 party 1’s non-party 208 party 2’s non-party 20. The Plaintiff’s non-party 2’s non-party 1’s prior-party 207 party 1’s non-party 20.

④ Although Defendant Han Bank, upon soliciting the above currency option contract, must grasp the export performance, etc. of Plaintiff Samco and recommend adequate contract amount accordingly, Defendant Han Bank did not have any data to grasp the export performance, and the examination statement prepared by Nonparty 1 branch office of the above Defendant also contains only Plaintiff Samco’s sales revenue (in light of the above examination statement, it can be known that the total sales amount was not the export price since Plaintiff Samco owned both a foreign country and a domestic sales office). The above examination statement contains approximately KRW 9,585,00,000, and the expected sales amount in 2007 is approximately KRW 9,70,000,000,000,000 won. From the perspective of Defendant Han Bank, it is doubtful that from the point of view of the above Defendant Han Bank, the contract amount (96,000,000,000 won) of each currency option contract should not be considered in foreign currency inflow from the currency option contract.

⑤ Furthermore, in light of Plaintiff Samco’s transaction experience, the mere fact that Plaintiff Samco used some benefits in the “Enhance Ford Form” contract does not appear to have any special circumstance, such as where Plaintiff Samco requested to conclude an additional contract with the risk at the speculative purpose even if the Hague land was located, and it appears that Defendant Samco did not sufficiently explain the above risk to the Plaintiff, and it appears that Defendant Samco bank actively recommended the currency option contract on January 23, 2008, which is an additional contract, which is an additional contract, which serves as OEH.

(6) Of course, it cannot be deemed appropriate to determine the export price to be converted on the basis of the contract price for foreign currency option since there was a prospect for a decline in foreign exchange rates at the time. In principle, even in cases where the purpose of holding goods sufficiently is to increase the hedge rate on the basis of exchange rate outlook at the time and the necessity of expanding the scope of the hedge range, etc. is to determine the contract price to be a somewhat misleading hedge rate on the basis of the contract price for foreign currency option, the contract price may be deemed appropriate in light of the purpose of the transaction. However, even though the foreign currency option contract was already conducted on December 20, 207, even if the foreign currency option contract was already conducted within the appropriate scope compared to the export price for the Plaintiff, Defendant Han Bank solicited the Plaintiff Samco to enter into the additional currency option contract, and the contract price to be set at approximately KRW 190% on the basis of the above additional contract, even if the exchange rate outlook at the time were to take account of the Plaintiff’s transaction experience, etc., and it seems that the Plaintiff bank appears to be more reasonable in light of the above possibility or possibility.

7) Ultimately, Defendant Han Bank, without taking serious consideration as to the scope of appropriate hedge, recommended Plaintiff Samco to conclude a currency option contract on January 23, 2008. As a result, the currency option contract of the above currency option contract was approximately KRW 190%, and thus, the amount in excess of the export price was an speculative transaction that gains profits or incurs losses depending on exchange rate fluctuations. Furthermore, the above currency option contract of January 23, 2008 is equivalent to the annual sales amount of Plaintiff Samco, and thus, the above currency option contract of January 23, 2008 is a contract that imposes excessive risk on Plaintiff Samco.

(4) If so, in full view of the above circumstances, in the case of a currency option contract as of December 20, 207 between the Plaintiff C&C and the Defendant Han Bank, the Plaintiff’s assertion that it violated the suitability principle while entering into a currency option contract as of December 20, 2007 with the Plaintiff C&C, and was in violation of the duty to explain that the exchange rate would decline at the time when there was a need for exchange hedging on the export price. Defendant Han Bank explained the structure and content of the said currency option contract to the Plaintiff, and that the contract amount would have been determined within the appropriate scope against the export price of the Plaintiff. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff suffered damage to the Plaintiff in violation of the duty to explain is without merit.

However, with respect to a currency option contract on January 23, 2008, the defendant Han Bank, while being aware of the exchange hedge price, recommended an additional contract to the plaintiff Samco to the extent appropriate, and the contract amount is considerably inappropriate, considering all the circumstances such as the transaction purpose, transaction experience, risk preference level, property status, etc. of the plaintiff Samco, it shall be deemed that the defendant Han Bank solicited the above plaintiff to bear an excessive risk, and thus, it violated the suitability principle, and thereby, violated the duty to explain and thereby, violated the duty to protect the plaintiff Samco. Accordingly, the defendant Han Bank is liable to compensate the plaintiff Samco for damage caused by the currency option contract on January 23, 2008.

B. Determination as to the claim for damages due to the breach of the duty of ex post customer protection

1) Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

The Defendants are obliged to protect ex post facto customer protection against the Plaintiffs. These obligations are satisfied and reasonable means of reduction of losses (the liquidation plan, restructuring plan, and purchase plan of call presses, which are presented by the Defendants, shall be appropriate to the Plaintiffs and shall not be reasonable means of reduction of losses). In other words, banks, experts, shall warn customers, non-professional, of the risk of increase of exchange rates and of the risk caused by increase of exchange rates, and explain the details, characteristics, advantages, etc. of the plan for reduction of losses in detail, and banks, after checking the degree of their understanding so that they can properly understand and make correct decisions on the reduction of losses, have the duty to implement them as intended by the customers by avoiding the final decision-making content of the companies regarding the reduction of losses. However, the Defendants, as they committed tort in violation of the ex post customer protection obligation, are liable for compensation for losses suffered by the Plaintiffs.

2) Determination

A bank shall bear its duty to protect its customers under the good faith principle, and even during the duration of a transaction, it shall not be deemed that the bank has a general duty to prepare a specific plan to prevent any loss to its customers. Therefore, where a financial product transaction contract is concluded and a bank ex post facto bears a duty to protect its customers, it shall not be deemed that the bank bears a duty to protect its customers. Accordingly, where a customer requests a scheme which is beyond the binding force of a financial product transaction and reduces its losses, the bank must properly explain the possible measures according to its individual transaction characteristics, and where it appears that a bank is objectively likely to cause a significant loss and that it can reduce its losses even if it is clear that it is not possible for the customer to know such situation without the customer's request, and where it appears that it is impossible for the bank to neglect it without the customer's request, it shall be deemed that it has the burden to prove the violation of the Defendants' duty to protect its customers.

However, according to the purport of Eul's evidence 30, witness's testimony and argument as a whole, the defendants explained the liquidation method or restructuring method of each currency option contract of this case at the plaintiffs' request. According to the characteristics of each currency option contract of this case, the above liquidation method and restructuring method seems to be general, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendants violated the duty of ex post facto customer protection. Thus, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

C. Scope of damages

Thus, when the defendant Han Bank concludes a currency option contract with the plaintiff Samco on January 23, 2008, the loss suffered by the plaintiff in violation of the suitability principle and duty to explain when it concludes the currency option contract, shall be equivalent to the loss incurred by the conclusion of the above currency option contract, and according to the overall purport of Gap evidence No. 67, Jan. 23, 2008, the transaction details of the currency option contract as of January 23, 2008 are as listed below [Attachment 4], and the loss of plaintiff Samco suffered by the above contract (=98,640,000 +987,640,000 +1,000,000 won).

The settlement rate of 0.25 US$ 20.30, 20.40, 205 US$ 20.40, 30.40, 205 US$ 20.40, 205.30, 205 US$ 20.40, 205.30, 205 US$ 20.40, 206.40, 205 US$ 205, 30, 206.49, 205 US$ 20, 206.48, 205 US$ 20, 305, 206.40, 205 US$ 205, 306.40, 16.40, 680, 000 - 937, 2040, 2008

Meanwhile, in full view of the above basic facts and the facts acknowledged as above, Plaintiff 3 should have understood the structure and contents of a KIKO currency option contract from Defendant 1 Bank several times, and thus, it should have been determined reasonably in consideration of all the circumstances such as transaction purpose, export price, risk acceptance capacity, exchange rate fluctuation, etc. regarding the contract amount. However, prior to the conclusion of the currency option contract on January 23, 2008, Plaintiff 3 should have been aware that it would have been based on the contract amount recommended by Defendant 1 Bank. Plaintiff 2 had been under the knowledge of exchange rate fluctuation (the exchange rate decline was likely to decline to Plaintiff 3, but it cannot be said that there was no possibility that exchange rate decline would have been absolutely decreased from Plaintiff 1’s 00 currency option contract from the total amount of 20% loss incurred from Defendant 20% increase in the currency option contract. However, it was also difficult to view that Plaintiff 28% loss incurred from the above 30% increase in the currency option contract from the total amount of 20% increase in the currency option contract.

Therefore, Defendant Han Bank is obligated to pay 345,024,000 won (=98,640,000 won x 35%-1,000,000 won) and damages for delay calculated by the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from January 14, 2009, the day following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case until November 29, 2007, which is the day when the above Defendant rendered a substantial decision, to the Plaintiff Samco for the existence and scope of the obligation, and the damages for delay calculated by the rate of 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day until the day of full payment.

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, all of the conjunctive claims of plaintiffs EPS and MPPPP are without merit, and the conjunctive claims of plaintiffs CPP are with merit within the scope of the above recognition.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, each of the plaintiffs' primary claims and each of the conjunctive claims of the plaintiff EP and MPPP Co., Ltd. are dismissed as they are without merit, and the plaintiff Samco's conjunctive claims are accepted within the scope of the above recognition with merit, and the remainder of the conjunctive claims are dismissed as they are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Sami-gu (Presiding Judge)

1) A product in which the currency is exchanged in another currency at a predetermined time at a certain time in the future. It has the same structure as the exchange of put options (the right of an exporting company to purchase the currency from the exporting company) and put options (the right of the exporting company to sell the currency to the financial institution at the agreed price) at the same time the exercising price is equal to 1:00. In the case of forward forward transactions, the fee to be received by the financial institution is imposed in the manner reflected in the agreed price, which is a condition of exchange at maturity, so a separate premium is not exchanged between the exporting company that entered into the contract and the financial institution.

2) In order to be guaranteed a higher exchange rate than a call forward transaction, the currency derivatives are determined at a certain proportion higher than the contract amount of put options that can be purchased by an exporting company at the time of the exercise of call options by the exporting company to a financial institution. The amount of put options increases compared to the contract amount of put options, which can be exercised by the exporting company. The amount of put options increases compared to the contract amount of put options is two.

3) Where the market rate at maturity is located within the upper and lower exchange rate, the parties do not have any rights and obligations. However, where the lower and lower exchange rate falls below the lower and lower exchange rate, put-in options, which can be sold at the lower and lower exchange rate, and call options which can be purchased at the upper and lower exchange rate if the maturity rate exceeds the upper and lower exchange rate.

4) The difference between the futures exchange rate and the spot exchange rate in the market means the difference between the futures exchange rate and the spot exchange rate in the market. If the swap point is + the rate of the futures exchange is higher than the market exchange rate, the futures exchange rate means the rate of the futures exchange is lower than the market exchange rate.

Note 5) At the time, the national bank, future casset securities, and Nos. (JP MMM) banks among domestic and foreign experts or financial institutions have predicted the possibility of an increase in the exchange rate, but not only did they have been significantly predicted, but also most of the other domestic and foreign experts or financial institutions have predicted the continuous decline in the exchange rate, and the predictability of the possibility of an increase in the exchange rate was disregarded.

6) VaR: Maximum amount of loss that may be incurred during a given period under normal market conditions, which shall be seen later in detail.

Note 7) However, this “loss” is merely a “loss of an opportunity interest” in the event that the said “loss” was carried out in kind in currency with strict risk of exchange, and the fact that the said “loss” falls under the case of speculative transactions without in kind in currency is followed.

Note 8) According to each entry in Eul’s Evidence 16 to 19 (including each serial number, if any) the closing rate of interest rate swap products is about 0.15% on the basis of total contract amount, and about 0.60% on the basis of total contract amount, and the closing rate due to the sale of fund products is about 1.82% on the basis of total payment amount, and the exchange commission is about 1% on the basis of total exchange amount.

9) Specifically, “the inherent fluctuation in the original/US exchange rate” as of March 18, 2008 recorded 10.025 as of March 18, 2008; 10.295 as of September 16, 2008; 15.8325 as of October 6, 2008; 20.7475 as of October 6, 2008; 25.75 as of October 7, 2008; 37.25 as of October 16, 2008; and 37.86 as of October 28, 2008.

10) The currency option contract is terminated due to the fulfillment of the set-off condition for a series of parties, or the risk that sales will increase due to the fulfillment of the set-off condition for a series of parties.