2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff, around March 25, 2008, opened the CMA account with the Defendant Company and traded the beneficiary certificates, EELS products, etc. with the said account from that time to 2016.

B. At the time of the Plaintiff’s transaction of each of the above goods, Nonparty B, an employee of the Defendant Company, recommended the Plaintiff to make a product, and during which process, Nonparty B determined that the Plaintiff had an active investment-oriented investment inclination, and recommended EELS products, etc., which are likely to incur principal loss.

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s cause of claim is the cause of the instant claim. The Plaintiff recommended the Plaintiff with a stable investment inclination, and sold incomplete products without sufficiently explaining the risks that may arise from the investment, while explaining the investment product. Accordingly, the Plaintiff suffered damages equivalent to KRW 65,675,191, which led to the Plaintiff’s loss, and thus, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages.

3. Determination

A. Article 46(3) of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act provides that “a financial investment business entity shall not recommend an ordinary investor to make an investment that is deemed unsuitable for the ordinary investor in light of the investment purpose, status of property, experience in investment, etc. of the ordinary investor.” Article 47(1) of the same Act provides that “a financial investment business entity shall explain to the ordinary investor the details of financial investment instruments, risks associated with the investment, and other matters prescribed by Presidential Decree, in cases where it makes an investment recommendation against the ordinary investor.” Article 46(3) of the same Act provides that “a financial investment business entity shall explain under paragraph (1).”