손해배상(기)
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasons why the court of first instance should explain this case in this case are as follows: the "Reference" of Chapter 6, Section 12, of the judgment of the first instance; the "Witness" of Chapter 6, Section 16, of the judgment of the first instance; the "Witness" of Chapter 6, Section 16, of the judgment of the first instance, shall be deemed as the "Witness of the first instance court"; the "no impact" of Chapter 10, Section 19, of the judgment of the first instance shall be deemed as "no impact"; the "this court" of Section 17, of the judgment of the first instance shall be deemed as "the court of the first instance"; and the plaintiffs' arguments in the first instance shall be deemed as being stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the additional determination as to the plaintiffs' arguments in the second instance court, and therefore, they shall be cited
2. Additional matters to be determined;
A. The Plaintiffs’ assertion that the instant beneficiary certificates constituted derivatives-combined securities or collective investment securities incorporated into derivatives-combined securities with the maximum loss rate of 100%, and thus, investment recommendation should be made in accordance with Article 6(4) of the above Rule, which is the provision for securing the suitability of investment recommendation, since they constitute derivatives, etc. according to the Defendant’s investment recommendation rules. However, in the instant case, investment recommendation was not made on
Ultimately, the defendant is liable to compensate the damages suffered by the plaintiffs as a result of the violation of Article 46 of the Capital Markets Act.
At the time of October 23, 2009, when the purchase of the Els products was first made in the name of the Plaintiff A, Plaintiff A was at least 65 years of age, and experience in derivatives-combined securities or derivatives investment, such as Elss, was nonexistent.
Therefore, according to the above rule, the plaintiff A, who represented the purchase of the beneficiary certificates of this case, was able to recommend only the principal-guaranteed Els products, and the investment recommendation of this case was not possible at all, whose maximum principal loss ratio is 100%.
However, the plaintiff A stated that the trading period of derivatives including derivative-combined securities is three years in the certificate of investment information for ordinary investors, but it is clear.