1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (hereinafter “Capital Markets Act”) provides for a financial investment business entity’s duty of trust and good faith, an obligation of preference to investors’ interests (Article 37), the suitability principle (Article 46), the duty to explain (Article 47), and prohibition of unfair solicitation (Article 49). Here, “financial investment business entity” refers to a person who obtains authorization from the Financial Services Commission or registers with the Financial Services Commission for a financial investment business under each subparagraph of Article 6(1) of the Capital Markets Act, such as investment advisory business,”

(1) Article 8(1) of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act provides that an investment advisory business entity shall file a report on a quasi-investment advisory business and shall not be deemed to apply to a quasi-investment advisory business entity that provides investment advice through publications, publications, correspondence materials, broadcasting, etc. (Article 101) or an unregistered investment advisory business entity that provides investment advisory services without registration.

(2) The lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the duty to protect investors under the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, in so determining, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the duty to protect investors under the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3

(a) When a quasi-investment advisory business entity provides customers with information about decisions on investment in financial investment instruments or the value of financial investment instruments, it shall be made by the customer;