(a) deliver 60,00 shares listed in Appendix 1 List;

(b)2.2.

A. Defendant Daewoo Securities Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) is a company whose purpose is to engage in financial investment business under the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (hereinafter “Capital Markets Act”). Defendant B is the head of the branch office of Defendant C and D are employees of the same branch office, each of whom was engaged in the stock expertise consultation.

B. E, as the Plaintiff’s spouse, primarily managed the Defendant Company Securities Account (Account Number: F; hereinafter “instant account”).

C. Around September 2013, Defendant B and D sought search for E and request for the transfer of the instant account to C and the transfer of the instant account to C, and E accepted the request, and the management point of the instant account was changed to C from the main point to C.

As of November 13, 2013, there were 60,00 LG display stocks and 92,147,502 won in the instant account.

E. D traded shares using the instant account as indicated in attached Table 2 from November 13, 2013 to December 23, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 5, 15 (including branch numbers for those with additional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 2 and 10, witness E, testimony of each party, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that there was no delegation from the Plaintiff or E to D on the transaction using the instant account. D without any authority, without notifying the Plaintiff and E thereof, made at will a stock transaction such as the attached Form 2 transaction statement.

Since the aforementioned voluntary sale violates a securities transaction consignment agreement or deposit agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Company, the consignment contract or deposit agreement is terminated through the delivery of a copy of the application for change of claim made on June 2, 2015 due to the nonperformance of obligation by the Defendant Company.

On the other hand, since the result of voluntary trade conducted by D cannot be attributed to the account of this case, Defendant.