2. Each of the plaintiffs' primary claims against the defendants, and each of the plaintiff 2's conjunctive claims against the defendant 2's Korea Standards Bank of Japan are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the portion arising between the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff, the New Bank, the Defendant New Bank, the new Bank, and the portion arising between the Plaintiff 2 and the Defendant Korea Standards Bank is borne by the Plaintiff 2.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

Defendant New Bank Co., Ltd. shall pay 75,000,000 won to the Plaintiff New Bank Co., Ltd., and 150,000,000 won to the Plaintiff Co., Ltd. 2. It is confirmed that there is no obligation pursuant to the currency option contract (attached Form 2) against the Defendant New Bank Co., Ltd., Ltd., the Plaintiff Co., Ltd., Ltd.

Preliminary Claim

The Defendant New Bank Co., Ltd. pays 75,000,000 won to the Plaintiff New Bank Co., Ltd., and 150,000,000 won to the Plaintiff Co., Ltd.

A. Status of the parties

1) Plaintiff 2: (a) operated from November 1, 1985, and produced handbaths and microbags, etc. for dental treatment, and exported the above dental appliances, etc. and received US currency (USD; hereinafter “USD”). Thereafter, Plaintiff 2 (hereinafter “Plaintiff Company”) was established on August 8, 2008 for the purpose of manufacturing dental appliances, etc., and transferred the business of Plaintiff 2 to the Plaintiff Company and was appointed as the representative director of the Plaintiff Company. The Plaintiff Company continues to perform the duties of exporting dental appliances, etc. and received US dollars.

2) The Defendants (hereinafter the Defendants Korea Standards Bank, Inc., Ltd., hereinafter the Defendants (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant Il Bank”) are banks engaged in banking business, such as receipt of deposits and issuance of securities, with the authorization of banking business from the Financial Services Commission pursuant to the Banking Act.

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

Plaintiff 2 and the Defendants, as indicated in [Attachment 1], entered into a currency option contract for USD 1 (the term “instant currency option contract” when a contract is referred to as “one of the instant currency option contracts concluded by Plaintiff 2 and the Defendants without any specific need (the term “title” in attached Table 1), and when all of the instant currency option contracts concluded by Plaintiff 2 and the Defendants are referred to as “each of the instant currency option contracts” (the term “instant currency option contract”). around August 2008, Plaintiff Company acquired from Plaintiff 2 all of the instant currency option contracts with Defendant New Bank’s present and future claims and obligations arising under the instant contract, and the said Defendant consented thereto. The specific contents of the instant currency option contract are [Attachment 1] and [Attachment 2].

On August 28, 2007, the monthly contract amount of the bank name in the table transaction date contained in the main text below the monthly contract amount of 1.3 million dollars 300,000,600/600,000 of the contract in this case ① on October 29, 2007, the contract in this case ① 200,000,0000 US dollars 20,0000,0000 per year and April 11, 2008 of this case ② the contract in this case with Defendant New Bank on April 11, 2008.

(c) the emergence, etc. of currency options products.

1) The background of the appearance of currency options products

A) Export companies, including the plaintiffs, receive export prices in foreign currency, such as US dollars. Since foreign currency values are frequently changed, there is a need to avoid exchange risk (hedge and hedging) that drops the value of foreign currency at the time of exchange. Accordingly, exporters trade currency derivatives to avoid exchange risk. Accordingly, in the past, in the currency forward transaction (ju 1), which is a basic monetary derivatives, or (1) currency forward transaction (in the past, simple forward forward forward exchange) or (2) mard (in the modifiedet 2), and mard (3) mard (in the future, marge for put option), which is a right to sell foreign currency at a certain price at a certain time in the future, it has not been widely used in put option, which is a right to sell foreign currency at a certain price.

B) However, around 2005, at the trend of a decline in the exchange rate (hereinafter “Exchange rate”) (hereinafter “Exchange rate”) around 2005, a monetary option product with a higher exchange rate appeared in a manner that adds a certain condition to a simple option or currency forward transaction. The conditions attached thereto are the following: (a) the 4) point (SP) point (SY) is recorded in the swap (-) and even in the monetary forward transaction from the position of an exporting company, even if the monetary forward transaction is made from the position of the exporting company, there is no choice but to bear any loss equivalent to the swap point; and (b) the exchange rate is close to or lower than the value appraised by the companies at the quarterly level of profit and loss; (c) there was a demand for the goods that guarantee a higher exchange rate than the forward exchange rate or market exchange rate. Accordingly, the currency option product with a higher exchange rate was made in a way that adds a certain condition to a simple option or currency forward transaction.

(ii) additional conditions;

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

If the market exchange rate falls below the exchange rate between put options and put options, which are put forward contracts, purchased by the export company, and then the export company has set up a contract for put forward options and contracts, the exchange rate is high instead of limiting the profits of the export company to a certain extent. However, in the case of certain contracts with A/B structure, it is possible to set up a contract for put forward contracts with BP options that 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, the conditions for a resale agreement are set up, and the market exchange rate is set up only once more than the exchange rate, which is a resale agreement, thereby limiting the burden of an exporting company’s call options to a certain rate of exchange. In this case, the risk range of an exporting company is limited to more than a certain rate of exchange, and the exchange rate is lower than the case where the conditions for a resale agreement 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

Pursuant to the following, the first basic form among currency option products, which are the highest price due to the addition of the terms and conditions of the PPP, and the term and conditions of the PPPP, is called "in the end of the PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP

A) During the observation period, in the event that the market exchange rate falls once less than the exchange rate between the two parties, the contract corresponding to that period is terminated.

B) In the event that the market exchange rate does not decline one time during the observation period, when the market exchange rate at maturity is lower than the market exchange rate, the Plaintiffs may exercise put options, and sell the contract amount to the Defendants at the market exchange rate. If the market exchange rate at maturity is higher than the exercise rate, the Plaintiffs may sell the contract amount at the market exchange rate without exercising put options to the Defendants.

C) In the event that the market exchange rate becomes more than once during the observation period, and the market exchange rate at maturity is lower than the exchange rate, the Defendants did not exercise the call option, and the Plaintiffs are able to use put options to sell the contract amount to the Defendants at the exchange rate at which put options are exercised. If the market exchange rate at maturity is higher than the exchange rate at which put options are exercised, the Defendants may purchase two times the contract amount at the exchange rate at which they exercise the call options to the Plaintiffs.

(d) The trend of exchange rates;

[Attachment 2]

A person shall be appointed.

As the exchange rate based on the sale-based rate was seen above [the exchange rate 2.2. Won/$2.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.06, the exchange rate was the highest 1,010.4 won per annum, the lowest 913.0 won per annum, and the change was 97.4 won. However, the major change range was 920 won or 980 won, which led to the decline and continued decline between 920 won and 980 won. In addition, during the year 2007, the exchange rate was the highest 952.3 won per annum and the lowest 89.6 won, which was 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 government-invested research institutes, the private research institutes, the majority of domestic and foreign financial institutions, etc., and the rapid increase in the exchange rate after 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. fulfilment of the conditions as a subsequent contract for each currency option contract of this case

After the conclusion of each currency option contract of this case, the exchange rate of exchange is gradually rise and a subsequent settlement agreement is more than the exchange rate, and the Plaintiffs were obligated to sell the two times of each contract amount to the Defendants at the exchange rate during which they exercise the exercise. As such, the total sum of the difference between the market exchange rate of each due date and the exercise exchange rate of the Plaintiffs actually paid by performing the Defendants’ double sale obligation. The total sum of the difference between the market exchange rate of each due date and the exercise exchange rate of the Plaintiffs’ two times is KRW 935,540,000 for each contract, and KRW 949,240,000 for each contract concluded with the Plaintiff Company and Defendant New Bank. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 20629, Nov. 5, 2008>

【In the absence of dispute, Gap 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 34, Eul 45, 65, Eul 7, 8, 12, Eul 16-2, Eul 16-2, testimony of non-party 1 (the non-party to the judgment of the Supreme Court), plaintiff 2 himself/herself, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

Under the premise that the instant currency option contract is a contract for goods unsuitable for the avoidance of exchange risk between the three companies operated by Plaintiff 2 and the export company of the Plaintiff company, the Plaintiffs primarily seek for the payment of the amount indicated in the primary claim against the Defendants as part of the money paid to the Defendants according to the instant currency option contract, and there is no obligation on the Defendant New Bank of the Plaintiff Company (attached Form 2). Preliminaryly, the Plaintiffs seek for the payment of the amount indicated in the instant preliminary claim against the Defendants as part of the money paid to the Defendants according to the instant currency option contract, and seek for the payment of the amount stated in the instant preliminary claim against the Defendants as part of the money paid by the Plaintiffs to the Defendants in accordance with the instant currency option contract, such as deception, suitability principle, and breach of duty to explain.

After examining the suitability of the exchange risk avoidance of each currency option contract of this case, which the plaintiffs asserted as the premise of the claim of this case, the legitimacy of the plaintiffs' detailed assertion is determined in order, as alleged by the plaintiffs.

3. Determination as to whether the exchange risk avoidance of each currency option contract of this case is appropriate

A. Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

Each currency option contract of this case is a contract on currency derivatives that is not suitable for the avoidance of exchange risk (hedge, H) because, instead of having no function to limit the plaintiffs' losses when the exchange rate falls below the exchange rate, it causes unlimited losses to the plaintiffs when the exchange rate falls above the exchange rate (hedge, H).

Furthermore, even though the instant currency option contract had been publicized as a co-stock option product, the Defendants actually calculated the theoretical value of put options more than the theoretical value of put options, and then imposed the difference as the commission fee [the credit risk management cost, dynamic hedge cost, and net profit]. The Defendants did not notify the Plaintiffs of the fact of imposing the fee itself, and it was unreasonable to impose the excessive credit risk management cost and the dynamic hedge cost based on the call option contract amount. As such, each of the instant currency option contracts is a contract on monetary derivatives that are at issue from the structural design.

B. Determination

The plaintiffs' detailed arguments are examined by the following items.

1. The degree of avoiding exchange risk of each currency option contract of this case

A) First, the purpose of hedge trading using derivative financial instruments is to avoid the risk of a fluctuation in the price of underlying assets. Therefore, in a case where an enterprise that owns or owns imported foreign currencies as an underlying asset was engaged in monetary options trading for the purpose of avoiding exchange risk, there is no change in overall profits and losses since the currency option contract itself takes profit only from exchange risk arising if the exchange rate increases, and as a result, there is no change in its overall profits and losses. However, in a case where a currency option contract is concluded for an speculative purpose without a holding of underlying assets, there is a risk of unlimited losses at the time of an increase in the price of underlying assets. Accordingly, such a currency option transaction may be deemed an investment or speculative transaction depending on its purpose, but may be deemed an investment or speculative transaction. In particular, it is directly linked to an uncertain factor, such as exchange rate, its prediction, and the overall evaluation of risks arising from the occurrence of exchange risk, and it should not be determined on the basis of the overall evaluation of risks arising from the conclusion of the contract after the conclusion of the contract.

B) However, in full view of the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5-1, 2, and 5-28, 47, and 48 and the purport of the entire pleadings, each of the instant currency option contracts constituted as follows.

(1) Each currency option contract of this case is based on the following conditions: (a) when a certain exchange rate is designated; (b) when a foreign exchange rate falls below a certain exchange rate, the currency option contract is terminated; and (c) the foreign currency equivalent to two times the contract amount is to be sold to the bank according to the exchange rate at which the exchange rate is exercised. The structure of profit and loss of each currency option of this case following a change in exchange rate is basically a risk factor (section 1) in which the company’s put options are extinguished when the exchange rate falls and the conditions are fulfilled; (b) where a company’s put options are formed between a two-year exchange rate and an event exchange rate (section 2); and (c) where a company gains profits by exercising put options during the observation period; (d) the exchange rate at which the maturity is formed between the exchange rate at which the exchange rate and the exchange rate; and (e) the exchange rate at which the company’s company sells the options market during the exchange rate at which the exchange rate becomes an exchange rate, and (e) the redemption period is more than three months during which is performed.

(2) Therefore, in the case of Section 1 where the exchange rate up to maturity falls short of the exchange rate between the two parties due to the termination of the respective currency option contract of this case, the Plaintiffs are exposed to exchange risk without achieving the purpose of avoiding exchange risk originally intended. If the market exchange rate at maturity is higher than the market exchange rate between the two parties due to the due date and the two sections below the market exchange rate due to the due date, the exchange risk would be avoided by exercising put options held by the Defendants at the exchange rate higher than the market exchange rate at the same time than the market exchange rate. During the observation period, the exchange rate at the same time does not rise above the market exchange rate which is the two parties due to the due date, and in the third section where the market at the due date is less than the exchange rate, the said exchange rate at the same time exceeds the market exchange rate at a higher level than the market exchange rate at the same time than the other parties’ respective exchange rate at the same time, the Defendants are obliged to exercise exchange risk than the above exchange rate at the same time. However, in this Section, the Defendants’ respective exchange rate at this is more than the redemption rate.

C) In full view of these circumstances, each currency option contract of this case may avoid exchange risk only in part, unlike monetary forward transactions, but it is more favorable to increase exchange rate than monetary forward transactions. In particular, where exchange rate fluctuations are low (in the case of Sections 2 and 3), exchange risk may avoid exchange risk within a reasonable scope. However, where exchange rate changes beyond a certain scope (in the case of Sections 1 and 4, exchange risk is either exposed to exchange risk as it is or foreign currency multiplied by the contract amount is sold to a bank. In other words, each currency option contract of this case is a currency option product that can be expected to avoid exchange risk more than the currency exchange rate by raising exchange rate in the section between the two participating parties. In short, it is reasonable to view that each of the instant currency options contract of this case is a currency option product that can be expected to avoid exchange risk than the currency exchange rate in the section between the two participating parties.

2) Determination on the specific assertion regarding the plaintiffs' fees

A) The assertion of illegality of the imposition of fees

(1) Summary of the assertion

The Plaintiffs asserted that the Defendants calculated the call option theory based on each currency option contract of this case higher than put option theory and imposed the difference as a hidden fee, such as credit risk management expenses, but the imposition of fees itself is unlawful on the following grounds.

A) Although the Defendants exempted the Plaintiffs’ deposits, etc. on the instant currency option contract in consideration of the Plaintiffs’ credit rating, it is unreasonable to impose the Plaintiff’s credit risk management expenses pursuant to the instant currency option contract. If the imposition is legitimate, it is unlawful to impose such expenses after the completion of the instant currency option contract.

B) Financial institutions, such as the Defendants, sell options, and then sell options, do dynamic hedging in order to avoid the risk to be borne by them, and as such, it is reasonable for the Defendants to pay for the expenses to be incurred in performing dynamic hedging in accordance with financial engineering until the maturity date. As such, it is unfair for the Defendants to receive from the Plaintiffs the expenses of put options separately from put options, and the Plaintiffs, who sold put options to the Defendants, were also entitled to receive the expenses of put options from the Defendants as observers, but did not pay them at all.

C) Even if the imposition of fees by the Defendants is legitimate, the Plaintiffs sold call options to the Defendants and purchased put options, so it is unreasonable for the Defendants to impose only the fees to be paid by the Plaintiffs, excluding the fees to be paid by the Defendants.

(2) Determination

(A) As to the assertion that the imposition of credit risk management costs is improper

In light of the facts stated in the Plaintiff 2 and the Plaintiff 2 at the time of entering into each contract, the fact that the Plaintiff 2 and the Plaintiff 2 did not receive the deposit or deposit money for each of the above contracts does not conflict between the parties, and that the Defendant 2 exempted the Plaintiff 2 from part of the deposit money by being provided as security for the deposit amount of KRW 300 million from the said Plaintiff at the time of entering into the contract of this case. However, the Defendant 2 and the Plaintiff 2 from the payment of the deposit or deposit money. However, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff 2 exempted the Plaintiff 2 from the deposit or deposit money in whole or in part, on the ground that the bank, including the Defendants, was paid by the other party to the transaction as security or deposit, and the bank was paid by the other party to the transaction with the payment of the deposit or deposit money from the other party to the transaction (which is appropriated for the deposit that the bank received from the other party to the transaction). Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff’s credit risk was exempted from the Plaintiff’s credit risk.

In other words, expenses for credit risk management are naturally imposed on an amount calculated according to a certain method of credit extension [the Exposure (the amount exposed to credit risk) x default rate x suburban loss rate] (Article 30(3) of the Regulation on Supervision of Banking Business imposes an obligation to evaluate and manage credit risks that may arise from various transactions on financial institutions even if Article 30(3) of the Regulation on Supervision of Banking Business imposes an obligation to evaluate and manage the credit risks that may arise from all kinds of transactions]. There is no direct relationship between the

In addition, expenses for credit risk management are similar to insurance money, banks shall accumulate the amount calculated in accordance with a certain method in preparation for the corporate credit risk. If a company causes loss to a bank because it fails to perform its obligation, it shall compensate for the loss at the expense, and it shall not be claimed for the return of the expenses. Therefore, the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

(B) As to the assertion of dynamic hedge cost

In full view of the statements and the purport of the entire pleadings, as alleged by the Plaintiffs, the fact that the option theory reflects the dynamic hedge cost, as argued by the Plaintiffs, the return rate of underlying assets is to constitute standard distribution, the fluctuation and interest rate is specified until maturity, and there is no transaction cost at all. However, the price of underlying assets is not constantly changed, the fluctuation and interest rate is also changed, and the bank’s transaction cost is to be determined as a matter of course. Therefore, it cannot be entirely satisfied the foregoing premise. In particular, in the case of a china option, which is under the conditions set forth by the china and the china, the transaction cost of the bank is to be determined as a matter of course. In particular, when the exchange rate fluctuations near the exchange rate, it is determined that the option’s price is rapidly and continuously changed, and thus the hedge cost will be more incurred.

In addition, the Plaintiffs concluded each currency option contract of this case with the Defendants for the purpose of preventing losses caused by the decline in the value of US dollars to be paid as export price, and as long as they hold US dollars in kind, it is limited to selling US dollars held in order to perform the obligation to call options to the Defendants at the event exchange rate, and there is no need to separately take dynamic hedging for the purpose of avoiding the risk to be borne as an option seller.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' above assertion is without merit.

(C) As to the plaintiffs' assertion of fees against the defendants

However, each currency option contract of this case basically purchased monetary option products sold by the Defendants for the purpose of avoiding exchange risk. However, the structure that the Plaintiffs granted the price for such purchase to the Defendants as a call option calculated in accordance with the method of calculating options. Therefore, the Defendants are only required to receive from the Plaintiffs in addition to the costs and profits incurred from the sale of the currency option product as a seller of the currency option product, and the Plaintiffs who purchased the currency option product do not need to receive the commission from the Defendants.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' above assertion is without merit.

B) excessive assertion of fees

(1) Summary of the assertion

The Plaintiffs asserted that the rate of commission of each currency option contract of this case, i.e., the rate of termination, should be calculated based on the theoretical value of put options, not the total contract price, which is not the contract price, and that, based on this, the Defendants’ fees imposed on the Plaintiffs pursuant to the instant currency option contract are excessive.

(2) Determination

In light of the Plaintiff’s domestic currency option contract’s foreign currency option contract’s foreign currency option contract’s foreign currency option contract’s foreign currency option contract’s foreign currency option contract’s foreign currency option contract’s foreign currency option contract’s foreign currency option contract’s foreign currency option contract’s foreign currency option contract’s foreign currency option contract’s foreign currency option contract’s foreign currency option contract’s foreign currency option contract’s foreign currency option contract’s foreign currency option contract’s foreign currency option contract’s foreign currency option contract’s foreign currency option contract’s foreign currency option contract’s foreign currency option contract’s foreign currency option contract’s foreign currency option contract’s foreign currency option contract’s foreign currency option contract’s foreign currency option contract’s foreign currency option contract’s foreign currency option contract’s foreign currency option contract’s foreign currency option contract’s foreign currency option contract’s foreign currency option contract’s foreign currency option contract’s foreign currency option contract’s foreign currency option contract’s foreign currency option contract’s foreign currency option contract’s foreign currency option contract’s foreign currency option.

However, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of Gap evidence 45-1, 2, and Eul evidence 16-1, 16-2, and the entire arguments, the defendants can recognize that the difference between the theoretical value of put options and put-in options is acquired as a commission (in particular, due to the conclusion of the contract in this case, the defendant new bank received KRW 6,00,00 among the difference between the theoretical value of put-in options and put-in options, and KRW 75,942,00,00 from business margin). The above fee is calculated on the basis of the total contract amount of put-in options according to each of the contracts in this case and the following [Attachment 3].

ABBD D/D instant contract ① USD 14,778,700 on August 28, 2007 to USD 37,200,000 (= USD 600,000,000 x 52bb) 0.52% on October 29, 2007 to USD 6,85,52 US$ 40,333,80,000,000 ($ 400,000,000 x12 months) of the instant contract ② The instant contract ② USD 46,885 on October 29, 2007 to USD 6,52,40,333,80,000 ($ 400,000,000 x 12 months) x 84% on August 16, 208, 208

The margin rate of the above [Attachment 3] is 0.52% (52bp) through 0.84% (84bp) and the interest rate swap products, funds, and money exchange rates, which can be known by each entry in Eul 34 to 38 (including each number) cannot be deemed significantly excessive compared to the margin of other financial transactions.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' above assertion is without merit.

C) The allegation of illegality of the imposition of fees

(1) Summary of the assertion

The plaintiffs asserted that it is unlawful that the Defendants did not notify the Plaintiffs of the fact that the instant currency option contract was a co-market structure when they concluded the instant currency option contract with the Plaintiffs, even though they imposed the difference between the call option theory and put option theory as commission fees.

(2) Determination

On the other hand, there is no obligation to notify the Plaintiffs that the Defendants impose the difference between the call option theory of each of the instant currency option contracts and the put option theory on the Plaintiffs in terms of the contract price of the call options [Article 65 subparagraph 6 (e) of the Enforcement Rule of the Bank Business Supervision Regulations only provides information on each of the prices (referring to the information at the level of customer transaction price, which is not the transaction price of the financial institution), for an inherent individual transaction. Article 58 (1) of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act provides that the financial investment business entity shall disclose the criteria and procedures for the imposition of fees and the fees received from investors. However, the aforementioned Act is not only effective from February 4, 2009 after the conclusion of each of the instant currency option contracts, but also does not constitute credit risk management expenses, dynamic hedge costs, net profits, etc. imposed by the Defendants].

In addition, even if the Defendants, at the time of entering into the instant currency option contract, deemed that the instant currency option contract was a foreign currency structure, the Plaintiffs continued to engage in banking transactions, such as credit transaction and credit transaction, and thus, it is difficult to view that the Defendants were aware that they would not enjoy any profit due to the conclusion of the instant currency option contract, and rather, have been aware that they would enjoy a certain profit.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' above assertion is without merit.

D) The allegation of illegality in the method of imposing fees

(1) Summary of the assertion

The plaintiffs asserted that it is unlawful that the Defendants did not impose fees under each currency option contract of this case at a fixed amount and reflected them in the theoretical value of the call option or in the customer price (the same as the customer price of put-in options) and thus, imposed them in the way that reflects them in the contract price of put-in options, thereby making them more than two.

(2) Determination

The structure of the instant currency option contract itself, in order to guarantee “the exchange rate higher than the futures exchange rate” in favor of the Plaintiffs, is an agreement with the structure that, in other words, made the contract amount of the call option higher than the contract amount of put option. However, in full view of the following: Gap 1, 2, 5, and 34; Eul 53, 65; Eul 12; Eul 12; witness testimony; and Plaintiff 2’s testimony at the time of entering into the instant currency option contract, it is recognized that the Plaintiffs were fully aware of the duty to sell double times according to the composition at the time of entering into the instant currency option contract.

In addition, reflecting the commission fee in the theoretical value of the call option, thereby reflecting it in the contract amount, is designed to design the instant currency option contract into a foreign market structure. If the plaintiffs intend to pay the commission in a fixed amount, put options traded at a certain price may be purchased or subscribed to exchange risk insurance. Furthermore, as seen earlier, the fact that the Defendants are not unjust to receive the credit risk management cost and the dynamic hedge cost from the plaintiffs. Furthermore, the method of receiving the commission can be used to reflect the fixed amount in the contract amount as alleged by the plaintiffs, and there is no ground to deem any of the methods appropriate or inappropriate, and thus, the Defendants cannot be deemed unlawful or unjust to obtain the commission fee in consideration of the customer option price.

As seen earlier, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendants were naturally aware that the Defendants would enjoy certain benefits at the time of entering into the instant currency option contract. As such, it cannot be deemed that the Defendants are obliged to provide the Plaintiffs with an opportunity to choose whether to pay fees in a fixed amount by informing the Plaintiffs of the method of imposing fees.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' above assertion is without merit.

3) Ultimately, the Plaintiffs’ assertion that each currency option contract of this case constitutes fraudulent derivatives of which exchange risk cannot be avoided from the standpoint of the Plaintiffs cannot be accepted.

4. Judgment on the main claim

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

1) Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

Each currency option contract of this case provides the basic contents of each option’s exercise condition, contract amount, exercise price, settlement method, payment terms, etc. for a large number of small and medium-sized exporters including the Plaintiffs in a standardized form. The content of the contract is a “term contract” as stipulated in the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions (hereinafter “Terms and Conditions Regulation Act”).

However, the terms and conditions of the contract are limited to profits from the customer's position, while losses are caused to the customer's position, and in the section where exchange rate drops, it constitutes "a clause that unreasonably unfavorable to the customer" under Article 6 (2) 1 of the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions and Conditions and Article 6 (2) 3 of the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions, such as where the customer cannot avoid exchange risk due to the terms and conditions of the contract formation, and "a clause that restricts essential rights of the contract to the extent that it is impossible to achieve the purpose of the contract" under Article 6 (2) 2 of the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions and Conditions as well as "a clause that is difficult to expect in light of all circumstances, such as the type of transaction, etc." under Article 6 (2) 2 of the Act

Ultimately, each currency option contract of this case constitutes a standardized contract which has lost fairness in violation of the principle of trust and good faith as provided by Article 6(1) of the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions.

2) Whether each currency option contract of this case constitutes a standardized contract

A) Criteria for determining whether a contract is a standardized contract

Article 2(1) of the Terms and Conditions Regulation Act provides that "a party to a contract, regardless of its name, form, or scope, becomes a content of a contract prepared in advance in order to enter into a contract with a large number of other parties (Article 2(1) of the Terms and Conditions Regulation Act). In a case where one party to a contract prepared a contract in advance in order to enter into a contract with a large number of other parties and presented it to a certain other party, if the other party has an opportunity to adjust his/her interests by conducting individual negotiations (or negotiations) as to a specific provision with the other party, the specific provision shall be deemed an individual agreement not subject to the Regulation of Terms and Conditions Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Da74863, Feb. 1, 2008; 2008Da16950, Jul. 10, 2008).

B) Determination

However, in full view of the written evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, and 34, Eul evidence Nos. 53, 65, Eul evidence Nos. 53, 65, Eul evidence Nos. 12 (including each number number), the testimony by Non-party 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings as a result of the plaintiff 2's personal questioning, 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 contents of each currency option contract of this case, each of the contract of this case, and then the contents of each of the contract of this case are changed according to individual transactions between the plaintiffs and the defendants, and it is not a contract contents which are determined in advance as to whether it is determined by individual negotiations of the parties. Thus, the above provision of this case currency option contract of this case cannot be

However, in the event that the exchange rate falls below the exchange rate between the two parties, the contract relationship is terminated and the company is exposed to the exchange risk. On the other hand, when the exchange rate falls below the exchange rate, the loss of the company can be increased as it is theoretically unlimited and particularly on the condition of recreation, ② the theory of exchange option acquired by the bank is designed more than the theoretical value of put options acquired by the company, and the structure of each contract of this case, such as the structure of put options, which is not specified, is prepared in advance by the defendants in order to enter into a contract with a large number of companies. However, it cannot be deemed that the contract itself constitutes the contents of the contract, and it cannot be said that the contract itself constitutes a concluded contract terms with the plaintiffs and the defendants under the above main contract terms determined by individual negotiations, and therefore, it cannot be seen as constituting a standardized contract terms and conditions through dissolution of only the above structure itself, which constitutes the basic characteristics of the goods, and it cannot be seen that the contract terms and conditions of this case are determined as the plaintiffs' individual contract terms and conditions of this case.

C) Sub-decision

Therefore, we cannot accept the Plaintiffs’ assertion that the instant currency option contract is unfair and invalid under the premise that the instant currency option contract is a standardized contract.

3) Whether the structure of each currency option contract of this case is unfair

A) As seen earlier, the provisions on the instant currency option contract do not fall under the terms and conditions. However, additional provisions on the structure of the contract are unreasonably unfavorable to the Plaintiffs, a customer of the instant currency option contract, and are so limited as to the extent that the purpose of the contract can not be achieved. In light of all circumstances, it is difficult for the Plaintiffs to expect in light of the overall circumstances, such as the type of contract transaction, etc., whether the terms and conditions are unfair

B) However, as seen earlier, in the case of Section 1 where the market exchange rate falls below the exchange rate set forth in the contract of this case among the contents of each of the instant currency option contract, the contract of this case terminates, and thus, the Plaintiffs did not achieve the purpose of avoiding exchange risk previously intended, and are exposed to exchange risk, and the losses of the Defendants were limited, while the exchange rate set by the Plaintiffs has increased above the exchange rate set up during the observation period. In the case of Section 4 with the maturity exchange rate higher than the exercise exchange rate, the risk of bearing the duty to sell the contract amount corresponding to the recreation may be extended as the Plaintiff’s losses in theory. In addition, each of the instant currency option contract of this case is designed more than the theoretical value of put options acquired by the Defendants compared to the theoretical value of put options acquired by the Plaintiffs, and thus, it is deemed that the Defendants cannot be mistaken for the payment of the price for options transaction by indicating the difference as “coin” in terms of the structure that the Defendants received as commission. In this respect, the structure of each of the instant currency option contract of this case seems unfavorable to the Plaintiffs.

C) However, in order to determine whether a contract provision has lost fairness, the overall content of the contract should be comprehensively considered, such as not only the content of the contract provision itself, the content of the individual agreement included in the same contract, and the relationship with other contract provisions.

In particular, where a contractual party’s profit or loss is directly linked to an indefinite factor such as future exchange rate fluctuation, and a quid pro quo relationship is formed based on the probability and prediction of such dynamic factor and the overall evaluation on the degree of risk acceptance, as seen in the instant currency option contract, the fairness of the contract cannot be determined retroactively based on the circumstances ex post facto realization, and should be determined based on whether the contractual term is reasonably formed at the time of conclusion of the contract. Therefore, if the contractual term cannot be deemed unfair at the time of conclusion of the contract, even if the contractual term is ex post facto disadvantage to the customer under the said contractual provision, in principle, it cannot be said to be a matter to be considered in determining the fairness of the contractual term.

D) However, it is difficult to view that the provisions on the structure of each currency option contract of this case have reached the degree of loss of fairness in light of the following circumstances (In full view of the entries in evidence No. 15 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Fair Trade Commission determined that the KIKO currency option contract of this case, such as the instant currency option contract, is unfair under the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions, as a result of going through the Terms and Conditions Advisory Committee on July 24, 2008, and decided to terminate the contract).

(1) The lower exchange rate of foreign currency held by the Plaintiffs is exposed to exchange risk and the Defendants’ losses are limited, while the Plaintiffs’ losses due to the increase in exchange rates are likely to be expanded in theoretically unlimited terms. However, the structure of each currency option contract of this case is equal to the Plaintiffs and the Defendants’ expectation interests in consideration of the positive distribution of exchange rate fluctuations. Therefore, it is inappropriate to determine the positive distribution of exchange rate fluctuations, and thus, it is difficult to deem the structure of the contract itself as an unfair juristic act to be unfairly disadvantageous to the Plaintiffs.

(2) In addition, comprehensively taking account of each of the items stated in Eul's 45,56,57, and Eul's 16 certificates (including each number), and the overall purport of oral argument, it is recognized that the customer price of put options acquired by the company is included in the expenses to be borne by the Defendants. Such expenses include credit risk management expenses, dynamic hedge expenses, business cost, etc. ① If the Defendants are a company pursuing profit-making, it is reasonable to obtain certain profits through the conclusion of each of the instant currency option contract, and it is reasonable that anyone can sufficiently anticipate such profits. ② The method that the Defendants receives a fixed amount of money as claimed by the Plaintiffs, such as expenses for managing credit risk and dynamic hedge expenses, and the method that the Plaintiffs received a fixed amount of money as stated by the Plaintiffs, including expenses for put options, and there is no reasonable ground to deem that the Plaintiffs' assertion that it is inappropriate or inappropriate to consider that the Defendants' assertion that it is unfair to receive fees from put options in excess of the theoretical value of put options.

(3) It is true that the Plaintiffs are exposed to the exchange risk in the event that the market exchange rate falls below the exchange rate set by the designated exchange rate. However, as seen earlier, each of the instant currency option contracts is not intended to avoid all risks arising from the exchange rate decline, but is designed to avoid exchange risk only to the extent that the Plaintiffs are able to voluntarily cope with the risk and to avoid exchange risk, taking into account the various factors affecting the contract terms, such as the option exchange rate. Therefore, the structure of each of the instant currency option contracts can not achieve the purpose of avoiding exchange risk depending on the exchange rate fluctuation situation, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the relevant contract provisions restrict the Plaintiffs’ inherent rights.

(4) In full view of the foregoing circumstances, solely on the ground that the Plaintiffs assessed the possibility that such risk actually occurred, it cannot be deemed that the contract provision that may cause such loss falls under a provision difficult to expect in light of the overall circumstances, such as the type of transaction, etc.

4) Sub-committee

Therefore, the plaintiffs' assertion that each currency option contract of this case is invalid in violation of the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions cannot be seen as invalid or acceptable.

B. Judgment on the assertion that it is invalid in violation of the principle of good faith

1) Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

The Defendants, by taking advantage of the fact that they maintain transaction relations with the Plaintiffs, did not explain at all the unfairness or exchange rate increase possibility of the instant currency option contract and the risks therefrom, thereby causing the Plaintiffs to have a false perception about the unfairness or risk of the instant currency option contract. In addition, the Defendants, despite being well aware of the fact that the instant currency option contract is a product entirely inappropriate for avoiding exchange risk, concluded the instant currency option contract with the Plaintiffs, without mentioning any mentioning the fact that the instant currency option contract is designed at the design stage and that it is a product entirely inappropriate for avoiding exchange risk.

This is contrary to the principle of trust and good faith under the Civil Code, and thus, each currency option contract is null and void.

2) Determination

As seen earlier, the Plaintiffs’ assertion that the instant currency option contract was inappropriate for avoiding exchange risk, or that the Defendants’ assertion that the Defendants imposed excessive fees on the Plaintiffs through the instant currency option contract was without merit is already examined. In addition, in full view of the entries in Gap 1, 2, 5, 34, Eul 5, Eul 12, Eul 12, the witness’s testimony, and the entire purport of Plaintiff 2’s oral argument, the Plaintiffs were aware of the Plaintiff’s explanation from the Defendants on the fact that there was a risk of selling twice when the exchange rate was increased in entering into each of the instant currency option contract with the Defendants, and the Defendants were aware of the fact that financial institutions are anticipated to decline exchange rate based on objective materials, and that there was no possibility of exchange rate increase in exchange rate increase, and otherwise, it did not constitute grounds to acknowledge that the Defendants’ assertion that each of the instant currency option contract was invalid against the principle of trust and good faith.

C. Determination on the assertion that an unfair juristic act is null and void

1) Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

The Plaintiffs concluded each currency option contract of this case with a small and medium-sized enterprise with knowledge of derivative financial transactions or financial engineering, with the content that they purchase place options with a significantly low value compared to the Defendants’ call option value.

Therefore, each currency option contract of this case constitutes an unfair legal act stipulated in Article 104 of the Civil Act and is null and void.

2) Determination

A) Legal principles

Article 104 of the Civil Act provides that an unfair legal act is established when there exists an objective imbalance between benefit and benefit in return, and such an act is established when a transaction which has lost balance is conducted using scambling, rashness or experience of the victimized party. The purpose is to regulate scambling, rash, or experience of the injured party. Moreover, the requirement for establishing an unfair legal act is not to satisfy all the requirements, but to fully satisfy only some of the requirements. The term “unexperience” refers to a lack of experience in a particular area, which means a lack of experience in a particular area, and thus means a lack of experience in general transactions. In addition, whether a party was in a state of poverty or inexperience, the determination should be made by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances such as his age and occupation, degree of social experience, property status, and degree of scambling, etc. of the victimized party. Meanwhile, even if the injured party was aware of scambling, 200 square meters or absence between the injured party and the other party.

B) Whether the plaintiffs' rashness, experience, and the defendants' intent to brush are recognized

In full view of the following circumstances, i.e., ① Plaintiff 2 had experience in earning profits in trading KIKO currency option products with Defendant Japan Bank three times prior to the conclusion of each currency option contract of this case, ② Plaintiff 2 actively understood the structure and content of each currency option contract of this case, and actively determined transaction conditions such as the time of conclusion of each contract of this case, contract amount, exercise exchange rate, etc., and Plaintiff 2’s statement Nos. 34 and the result of Plaintiff 2’s identification alone are insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiffs were in a state of light or experience at the time of conclusion of each currency option contract of this case.

In addition, it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendants, at the time of entering into the instant currency option contract, had known the Plaintiff’s knowledge of the Plaintiff’s rashness and experience, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

C) Whether to recognize substantial imbalances

In accordance with each currency option contract of this case, the Defendants acquired the difference between the theoretical value of put options and the theoretical value of put options as fees, and such fees are calculated based on the total contract amount of put options according to each currency option contract of this case, the fact that it cannot be deemed significantly excessive compared to the margin of other financial transactions, and that the theory of put options does not reflect all the economic benefits the Plaintiff gained through each currency option contract of this case.

In addition, it is difficult to view that there is a significant imbalance between the payment and the consideration on the instant currency option contract, on the grounds that the actual transaction profit or loss was at a disadvantage or favorable to either party, following the conclusion of the instant currency option contract.

Therefore, in light of the aforementioned circumstances, each of the statements in evidence Nos. 25, 29, 30, 31, and 52 is insufficient to deem that there is a substantial imbalance between the Plaintiffs’ put options exchanged pursuant to the instant currency option contract and the Defendants’ put options value, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

3) Sub-decisions

Therefore, the plaintiffs' assertion that each currency option contract of this case constitutes unfair legal acts is invalid is without merit.

D. Determination on the assertion on revocation of each currency option contract of this case

1) Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

In the process of concluding each currency option contract of this case, the Defendants: (a) as if the instant currency option contract was not a financial product suitable for avoiding exchange risk, such as the termination of a contract, the instant currency option contract was not made; (b) there was a significant imbalance between the value of put option acquired by the Defendants and the value of put option acquired by the Plaintiffs; and (c) the Defendants, despite receiving the amount equivalent to the difference from the commission or the due payment, deceiving the Plaintiffs to believe that the value of put option purchased from the Defendants is equal to that of put option and sold by the Defendants; and (d) concluded each of the instant currency option contract by deceiving the Plaintiffs to believe that the amount equivalent to the amount of put option, sold by the Defendants, is equal to the amount of put option and the amount of other expenses, and without being aware of the fact that it was imposed by reflecting the theory of put option or the large customer price as a commission.

Therefore, pursuant to Article 109 or Article 110 of the Civil Act, the Plaintiffs revoked the instant currency option contract by serving a duplicate of the instant claim.

2) Determination as to the assertion of deception or mistake concerning the avoidance of exchange risk

In light of the above, where a currency option contract of this case is less than exchange rate fluctuation (in this case, Sections 2 and 3 above), exchange risk may be avoided within a reasonable scope. On the other hand, where exchange rate changes beyond a certain scope (in the case of the above Sections 1 and 4), a partial exchange risk avoidance product exposed to the risk of being sold to banks by means of foreign currency which multiplied by the contract amount or the contract amount, is a partial exchange risk avoidance product that is exposed to the risk of being sold to banks. As such, since there is a high probability for the risk of foreign currency to bear the risk at the district where the probability is lower than the probability of the probability of the probability of the risk, the designated exchange rate is higher than the currency forward transaction. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs’ assertion that the instant currency option contract of this case is not suitable for exchange risk avoidance, or that the Defendants’ assertion that the Defendants were not subject to exchange risk decrease above the terms and conditions of each of the instant currency option contract of this case due to the lack of exchange rate or subsequent exchange rate, the Defendants’ conclusion that the instant currency option contract of this case’s redemption contract of this case’s 2.

3) Determination as to the relevant fraud or mistake regarding the concealed commission or option value, etc.

The theory of put-in options acquired by the Defendants through each currency option contract of this case is designed to be higher than the theoretical value of put-in options acquired by the Plaintiffs. The Defendants, as fees, received the difference equivalent to the difference reflecting the customer price of put-in options in put-in options, as seen earlier. However, in full view of the respective descriptions of Gap 1, 2, 5, 34, Eul 53, 65, Eul 12 (including numbers in put-in options), witness 1’s testimony, Plaintiff 2’s personal questioning results, and the overall purport of oral argument, the Defendants did not explicitly explain to the Plaintiffs at the time of entering into each of the instant currency option contracts, and explained to the effect that it does not need to pay separate put-in options, thereby soliciting the conclusion of each of the instant currency option contracts of this case.

However, it does not mean that the theoretical value of put options and put options are identical to put options in the market for over-the-counter financial products, but it does not mean that customers need not pay premium or expenses separately to banks in return for the acquisition of options by exchanging put options with put options, which are designed at the same price. Furthermore, as seen earlier, as long as the Defendants do not have any duty to notify the Plaintiffs of the fact that the difference between the put options theory and put options theory is reflected in the contract price of put options, it cannot be deemed that the Defendants did not inform the Plaintiffs of the fact that the Defendants did not have any duty to inform the Plaintiffs of the fact that the put options theory and put options theory are being imposed as fees. Furthermore, as seen earlier, it is difficult to deem that the Defendants did not enter into the contract of this case as a profit-making company, as well as the Defendants did not have any duty to inform the Plaintiffs of the fact that each of the put options theory and put options theory are reflected in the contract price of put options.

Therefore, even if the Defendants did not need to pay a separate fee at the time of entering into the instant currency option contract, or did not state that the Defendants’ profit is inherent in the structure of the instant currency option contract, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiffs caused mistake that the Plaintiffs did not bear any cost upon the conclusion of the instant currency option contract, or that the value of each option is equal. Moreover, it is difficult to deem that it constitutes an important part of the contract.

4) Sub-committee

Therefore, the plaintiffs' assertion on the cancellation of each currency option contract of this case on the grounds of fraud or mistake cannot be accepted.

E. Sub-committee

Therefore, the plaintiffs' primary claim seeking monetary payment or seeking confirmation of the absence of contractual obligation on the ground that each contract of this case is null and void or cancelled is without merit.

5. Judgment on the conjunctive claim (claim for Damages Caused by Unlawful Act)

A. Determination on the claim for damages caused by the Defendants’ deception

1) Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

In the process of concluding the instant currency option contract, the Defendants are the Plaintiffs as if the instant currency option contract was not a financial product suitable for avoiding exchange risk, such as the termination of a contract, even though the instant currency option contract was not a chiped exchange rate below the exchange rate. ② There is a significant imbalance between the value of the call option acquired by the Defendants under the instant currency option contract and the value of put-in options acquired by the Plaintiffs. The Defendants deception the Plaintiffs as if they did not incur any additional costs because they were designed to be equal in the value of the option even though they received the amount equivalent to the difference from the commission or the margin. As such, the Defendants are obliged to compensate for the amount of each claim, which is part of the damages suffered by the Plaintiffs due to the instant currency option contract concluded by the said deception.

2) Determination

On the other hand, the part of the claim for damages on this ground is without merit to further examine the remainder of the claim for damages, since the plaintiffs' assertion that the Defendants made such deception while entering into each currency option contract of this case with the plaintiffs is groundless.

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

1) Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

Each currency option contract of this case is a currency option product that is not suitable for the purpose of avoiding exchange risk, such as where exchange rate increases, there is a risk that may cause unlimited and practical damage to the plaintiffs, and the profit structure of the product itself is unilaterally disadvantageous to the plaintiffs. Thus, the defendants' act of recommending and selling such product to the plaintiffs constitutes a tort in violation of the suitability principle.

In addition, the Defendants, upon entering into the instant currency option contract with the Plaintiffs, used the term “financial expertise in English” in the contract form, and did not clearly and fully explain the risks or structure contained in the instant goods only in the form of a contract, but did not clearly explain. Moreover, the Defendants committed tort in violation of the duty to explain, such as concealing the fact that the fees concealed in the instant currency option contract are more unfavorable to the Plaintiffs due to increase in exchange rates by taking the method of reflecting them in the call option contract price rather than receiving a fixed amount.

Therefore, the Defendants are obligated to compensate the Plaintiffs for each amount stated in the claims, which is part of the damages suffered by the Plaintiffs due to the Defendants’ tort.

2) Whether liability for damages occurred

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

The instant currency option contract, which is traded in the OTC 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 the foreign exchange market, prospect of exchange rate fluctuations, appraisal of options value, etc., and can function as a financial product for the management of exchange risk, as well as a financial product for investment or speculation. Meanwhile, a non-financial-professional company is not easy to accurately understand the contents, structure, risk, etc. of complicated contracts. Therefore, it is necessary to receive transaction information from a financial institution that sells financial products as an expert in order to make a reasonable judgment and make a decision on its own responsibility.

Therefore, in selling such monetary option products, a bank as a financial expert has an obligation not to actively recommend transactions involving excessive risk, taking into account all the circumstances such as trading purpose, transaction experience, degree of risk preference, property status, etc. under the good faith principle, and is obliged to protect customers by clearly explaining the characteristics of the product, major contents, and risks associated with the transaction to the company, taking into account the characteristics of the product, risk level, corporate experience and ability, etc.

B) Facts of recognition

There is no dispute between the parties, or the following facts may be acknowledged by taking into account the following facts, as a whole: Gap evidence Nos. 14, 34, 35, 36, Eul evidence Nos. 5, 9, 10, 11, 50, 52, 53, Eul evidence Nos. 9, 10, 12, 14, and 15 (including each serial number), the testimony of non-party 1, the testimony of non-party 2, and the whole purport of pleadings as a result of the examination of the plaintiff 2:

(1) The plaintiff's export performance and exchange hedge experience

(A) The export performance of the Plaintiff Company after the conversion of the Plaintiff Company, 6,014,30 in 205, 6,177,827 in 2006, USD 5,836,903 in 2007, USD 9,350,286 in 2008, USD 5,436,442 in 209 from January 2009 to July 2009.

(B) The Plaintiffs had significant impact on the sales, and there was a need to avoid exchange risks. Accordingly, Plaintiff 2 entered into three options contracts with Defendant 1 Bank prior to the conclusion of the instant currency option contract with a view to avoiding exchange risks on USD 1 received from exports. Detailed details are as listed below (Attachment 4).

On July 28, 2006, the amount of settlement (month) of Plaintiff 2’s profit during the contract period of the product name of the financial institution listed in the table contract contained in the main text, the amount of USD 5,879,000,000 (L:2 times) for Defendant Japan Bank on August 9, 2006, approximately 2,480,000 won on August 10, 2006, the amount of KRW 5,8790,000 (L: 2,000,0000,0000,00000 (L: 2,000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000 won (L: 2,2480,000,000,000) on December 10, 206.

(2) The process of concluding a currency option contract between Plaintiff 2 and Defendant 1 Bank

(A) On July 28, 2006, Plaintiff 2 entered the KIKO option product into the KIKO currency option product. Before entering into a currency option contract on July 28, 2006, Nonparty 4, who was an employee of the detailed industrial company operated by Plaintiff 2, prepared a business status report of the detailed industrial company on July 13, 2006 and submitted it to Defendant Il-il Bank. The business status report included the export performance of KRW 3,090,000 in the year 2003, KRW 5,278,000,000 in the year 204, KRW 6,600,000 in the export performance of the year 205, KRW 13,000 in the year 206.

(B) After that, Plaintiff 2 entered into a currency option contract as described in the above [Attachment 4] with Defendant Il-il Bank, and came to gain profits from each transaction. Accordingly, at the time when the contract term of a currency option contract expires on July 28, 2006 and August 9, 2006, Plaintiff 2 and Defendant Il-il Bank concluded a new currency option contract.

(C) On August 22, 2007, Plaintiff 2 sent by facsimile the monthly export, import, and estimated export amount (five representative trading partners) in 2006, each year of 2007, each year of 2007, and the estimated export amount (five representative trading partners) in 2008. The total export amount of five representative trading partners in 2008 as stated by the said Plaintiff was USD 1,290,00. The export amount of the year 2006 was USD 6,320,00, and KRW 231,700. The export amount of the year 2006 was USD 6,320,000. From January 23, 2007 to July 2007, the export amount was USD 4,923,00, and KRW 373,700.

(D) On August 28, 2007, the non-party 5 Deputy Director of the Defendant Il-il Bank sent to Plaintiff 2 a proposal for the transaction of KIKO option products (Evidence 11). The one page of the transaction proposal is as follows: “The market exchange rate is at least 955 won, but at least once during the duration of the observation period, at a short rate of exchange, and at the bottom rate of 905 won, at the lower rate of exchange.... The other side of the transaction proposal is as follows: (a) if the maturity rate of 933 won is 933 won or more, the customer shall sell the transaction amount at 933 won (USD 1,00,000), but if the transaction amount is below 93 won, 1 USD 50,000 won or more, 9333 won or more, 200 won or more, 30% or more of the transaction amount (USD 20,000 won).”

(E) On the same day after sending the above transaction proposal to the non-party 5 vice-director of the Defendant Il-il Bank, he prepared the limit for the above Plaintiff and Defendant Il-il Bank to trade by phoneing the above transaction proposal to the plaintiff 2. The plaintiff 2 prepared to conclude a transaction by reporting exchange rate setting and concluding a transaction. The plaintiff 2 prepared to conclude the exchange rate setting. Thus, the above transaction proposal sent by e-mail will turn on one hand.

(F) On the same day, Plaintiff 2 visited Nonparty 6, who was the employee of the Defendant Il-il Bank, to enter into a KIKO currency option contract with the Defendant Il-il Bank on the same day, asked whether the exchange rate of the above transaction proposal is KRW 933,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won, and then, Plaintiff 2 asked Nonparty 5 to enter into a KIKO currency option contract with Nonparty 5, 300,000,000,000,000 won, and 30,000,000,000 won, and 9,000,000 won, 30,000,000 won, and 30,000,000 won, and 9,000,000 won, 7,000,000 won, and 2,00,000 won, more than the contract amount.

(G) In addition, on October 9, 2006, Plaintiff 2 discussed the additional conclusion of a foreign currency option contract with Defendant 1 Bank on the condition that the contract period of the foreign currency option contract expires. On October 15, 2007, Plaintiff 2 sent to Defendant 1 Bank documents stating the amount of USD 10,000,000 as the estimated export amount in 208. On October 29, 2007, Plaintiff 2 entered into the instant contract with Defendant 1 Bank, which is KRW 200,000 per month.

(h) Plaintiff 2 suffered loss from the date of settlement around November 2007 of the instant contract and the instant contract.

(3) The process of concluding a currency option contract between Plaintiff 2 and Defendant New Bank

(A) Meanwhile, on the other hand, the head of the non-party 1 branch of the Defendant New Korea Bank visited Plaintiff 2 and explained KIKO currency option products to the above Plaintiff during February 2008, the said Plaintiff entered into two currency option contracts with the Defendant Il Bank, which had already been concluded by Plaintiff 2, and the said Plaintiff got profits for the first few months, but suffered losses after ten months.

(B) After that, the head of the non-party 1 branch of the non-party 2 of the non-party 2 of the non-party 2 of the non-party 1 branch of the non-party 2 of the non-party 2 visited the office of the plaintiff 3-4 times. The head of the non-party 1 branch of the non-party 2 of the non-party 2 of the non-party 1 branch of the non-party 1 of the non-party 2 of the non-party 2 divided the plaintiff 2 into the exchange rate prospects. At the time of the above plaintiff's use of a call option in the instant currency option contract which was concluded with the plaintiff 1 bank with the defendant 2, taking a difference settlement method instead of paying in kind as the export price, and taking the exchange rate into account the exchange rate into account the non-party 7 of the non-party 2 of the above plaintiff 1 bank with the export price, he introduced the plan to sell for the above export price at the high rate of exchange rate.

(C) As such, while the head of the non-party 1 branch office of the new bank recommended the plaintiff 2 to enter into the currency option contract for the purpose of compensating for losses, the exchange rate of 1,029 won was gradually lowered, and the plaintiff 2 expressed his intent to enter the currency option contract to the new bank. The head of the non-party 1 branch office of the new bank expressed his intent to enter the currency option contract to the new bank. On April 1, 2008, the head of the new bank applied for the approval of the extension of the term deposit amount of 30 million won out of the performance bond of the above currency option product as security and applied for the limit of the monetary option product under the condition that part of the deposit amount would be exempted. The opinion was written on April 4, 200, the non-party 200, 3007,700 won and 3008,000 won and 205.

(D) On April 11, 2008, Plaintiff 2 entered into the instant contract with the Defendant New Bank. After that, on April 14, 2008, Plaintiff 2 offered KRW 300,000,000 deposited as a deposit to the Defendant New Bank as the security of the instant contract ③ on April 14, 2008, and on April 17, 2008, Plaintiff 2 sent by facsimile documents stating that the total export performance amount of the year 2008 was USD 12,50,500.

(E) The Plaintiff 2 asked the Defendant New Bank to determine whether to cancel the contract in this case’s case’s contract and at an uneasible mind. However, the Plaintiff 2 told that cancellation is impossible from the Defendant New Bank.

C) Determination as to whether Defendant Il Bank violated the suitability principle and duty to explain

(1) In the case of each currency option contract of this case, there is a possibility that Plaintiff 2 could not achieve the purpose of avoiding exchange risk, or that the said Plaintiff would incur losses due to the duty to sell twice the same, and the direction and scope of exchange rate fluctuations are difficult to forecast experts. The contract term is one year, and the contract term is a co-market structure in which there is no cost for the acquisition of options that a company should actually pay to a bank, and it is not easy for the said Plaintiff to clearly recognize and seriously consider the risk following the contract execution. In addition, as seen earlier, it is recognized that Defendant Il-il Bank recommended the conclusion of each contract of this case without clearly explaining to the said Plaintiff at the time of entering into each contract of this case, < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 20689, Dec. 1, 200>

(2) However, according to the above facts, the following circumstances can be acknowledged.

(A) Considering the direction and degree of change in the exchange rate that was generally anticipated at the time of entering into each contract, each of the above contracts is the rapid increase in the exchange rate to achieve the purpose of avoiding exchange risk arising from the decline in the exchange rate, taking over risks arising from the relatively low possibility at the time of entering into each of the above contracts, while enhancing the exchange rate at the time of entering into each of the above contracts, it is difficult to view that the contract period, structure, and conditions are unreasonable.

(B) As can be seen, ① each contract of this case can sell USD at an exercise rate more favorable than monetary forward transaction instead of avoiding exchange risk within a certain range of exchange rate higher than that of the former two-year relationship. On the other hand, the market exchange rate is higher than that of the latter two times in the event that the maturity rate is higher than that of the latter two after the latter two months after the latter two times the put option contract amount can be seen as having been sold at the exercise rate. The Plaintiff entered into each contract according to its own decision with the first bank after hearing a sufficient explanation on the structure of put forward currency options.

(C) In addition, the transaction proposal issued by the Defendant Il-il Bank to Plaintiff 2 stated that the “part-time hedge strategy” is also included in the transaction proposal. In addition, Plaintiff 2 concluded a KIKO currency option contract in three times prior to the conclusion of each contract and experienced profits by concluding the KIKO currency option contract in the three times prior to the conclusion of each contract, and the contract period, contract amount, contract amount, time of conclusion of each contract were set on its own.

(D) In addition, Plaintiff 2 is highly in need of managing the exchange risk of the export price. In addition, there was sufficient need to take more exchange margin by concluding the instant currency option contract with a high exchange rate of exchange rate. In addition, the contract term of the instant currency option contract is one year, but the Plaintiff is expected to continuously bring the export price for one year, and thus, the period is not unreasonable.

(E) The instant currency option contract is basically a product aimed at foreign exchange hedging, and where a company holds sufficient goods on the basis of the call option contract price even if it performs the duty to sell twice as a result of exercising a call option from a bank, the company does not actually incur losses to make additional payments for the purchase of goods. However, if a company does not hold a kind of goods, it is important to determine whether the contract price is appropriate in light of the company’s transaction purpose, exchange rate outlook and exchange rate fluctuation, risk preference, and property status.

However, the plaintiff 2 submitted to the above defendant 2 a business statement stating that the export performance for the year 2006 was USD 13,00,000 before commencing the currency option transaction with the defendant Il-il Bank. On August 22, 2007, the plaintiff 2 notified the defendant Il-il Bank that the total export performance was about USD 6,320,000 for the year 206 and about 1,290,000 for each of the five expected export transactions in 208 (the plaintiff 2 had a large number of customers, but the representative of the contract was basically about 00,000,000 for each of the above 00,000,000 if the contract amount was 1,000,000,000,000 for the contract amount was 1,000,0000,0000,000,0000,000.

(F) As recognized earlier, insofar as the Defendant was an enterprise pursuing profit-making by Defendant Jeju Bank, it is reasonable that the Defendant gains a certain amount of profit through the conclusion of each contract, and the Plaintiff can sufficiently expect this.

(3) Therefore, in full view of the aforementioned circumstances, considering the overall circumstances such as Plaintiff 2’s transaction purpose, transaction experience, degree of risk preference, property status, etc., Plaintiff 2’s above Plaintiff 1 actively recommended a transaction involving excessive risk, or Defendant 2’s violation of the suitability principle and duty to explain by hindering the Plaintiff’s aforementioned Plaintiff’s formation of proper awareness about risks inevitably accompanying the transaction due to the Plaintiff 2’s failure to sufficiently explain the characteristics, major contents, and risks associated with each contract to the extent necessary, and thus, it is difficult to recognize that Defendant 1 Bank violated the suitability principle and duty to explain. Thus, the above assertion by Plaintiff 2 that Defendant 2 violated the suitability principle and duty to explain cannot

D) Determination as to whether Defendant New Bank violated the suitability principle and duty to explain

(1) While entering into the instant contract, Defendant New Bank explained that: (a) when the exchange rate is below the exchange rate between Plaintiff 2 and the two parties to the instant contract, the transaction is terminated; (b) when the exchange rate is more than the exchange rate between the two parties to the instant contract; and (c) during the observation period, the exchange rate is more than once more than the exchange rate between the two parties to the instant contract; and (d) when the maturity is higher than the exchange rate than the exercise rate, the Plaintiff entered into the instant contract under the fully understandable understanding of the structure and content of the instant contract. In addition, Plaintiff 2 was clearly aware of the risk of the instant contract since it entered into the instant contract during the performance of the obligation to sell twice the instant contract.

(2) However, according to the above facts, the following circumstances are revealed.

(A) The head of the non-party 1 branch of the non-party 2 of the non-party 2 of the new bank knew that the exchange rate increase after the contract was concluded with the non-party 2 on the whole export price of the foreign currency option contract, and recommended the above plaintiff 2 to conclude an additional KIKO currency option contract in order to compensate for losses during the contract term of the KIKO currency option contract previously concluded with the above plaintiff. Thus, the defendant 2 should be deemed to have recommended the plaintiff 2 to conclude the contract of this case for the purpose of compensating for losses arising from the existing contract, i.e., speculative purpose to consider monetary profits in the contract additionally concluded (in addition, according to the statement of evidence No. 35, the defendant 2's additional transaction was refused to enter into the contract of this case for the purpose of compensating for losses arising from the pre-existing contract since the above plaintiff 2 was not the party 2's request made to the plaintiff 2 after the conclusion of the pleading currency option contract, but it appears that the new bank was not the party 20.

(B) Defendant New Bank was aware that Plaintiff 2 was engaged in KIKO currency option transactions with Defendant 1 Bank. ③ The contract amount of this case was USD 500,000 per month as of put option, and USD 1,00,00 per month as of call option. Since it appears to be in line with the total contract amount of this case ① and ② before entering into the contract of this case, Defendant New Bank was already aware of the contract amount of this case ② before entering into the contract of this case. However, from April 11, 2008 to August 27, 2008, the contract amount of this case was KRW 208,000 per month as of August 1, 2008 to KRW 20,000,000 per each of this case’s 80,000 per month as of August 27, 2008 (the contract amount of this case’s 208,000,0000,000).

(C) In a case where a foreign currency option contract is additionally entered into without kind to compensate for losses incurred in the existing KIKO currency option contract, the scope of its profits is limited as it is possible to gain profits only when the exchange rate is at a rate of exchange and lower than the exchange rate of the exercise. On the other hand, in a case where the exchange rate is above the exchange rate, the exchange rate shall be liable to sell twice the contract amount without any limit, and it shall be highly dangerous in light of its transaction purpose.

(D) Although Defendant New Bank Co. 1’s written opinion (BB or No. 9-1) was merely a statement of Plaintiff 2’s export performance at the time of applying for the extension of its credit (the above Defendant received documents (B or No. 14) from Plaintiff 2 in 2008). The above Defendant stated that “The export tower was 500,000 won around November 2005, the sales volume of 2006 KRW 7,180,000, and KRW 60-70% of the sales volume of the Plaintiff 2 was 30,000,000,000 won was 80,000 won was 12,000 won in 20,000 won in 20,000 won in 30,000 won in 20,000 won in 20,000 won in 20,00 won in 20,00 won in 3.

(E) Furthermore, the head of the non-party 1 branch office of the Defendant New Korea Bank actively recommended the said Plaintiff to conclude the instant contract by making several visits by Plaintiff 2, and on 2008, most of the firstman financial institutions in the early 2008 anticipated a stable decline in the exchange rate during the year 2008, the exchange rate of the instant contract ranging from February 2, 2008 to April 11, 2008, on which the conclusion of the instant contract was discussed (i.e., the exchange rate ranging from March 2008 to April 11, 208).

(3) If the customer intends to use the KIKO currency option product, which is a product made for the purpose of foreign exchange hedging, for an speculative purpose beyond the purpose of foreign exchange hedging, it would be difficult for the bank to have the obligation to refuse it, but rather, it would be a matter to actively encourage the customer to use the above product for speculative purpose. Considering the above circumstances comprehensively, it is apparent that, at the time of the conclusion of the instant contract, Plaintiff 2 entered into a KIKO currency option contract with respect to the whole export price, it would be a situation where there is no kind of goods if it entered into an additional contract, and the Defendant New Bank actively recommended the Plaintiff to enter into the KIKO currency option contract of the above contract amount for the purpose of speculative purpose of obtaining monetary profit through exchange fluctuation even though it was aware of it, and in light of all the circumstances such as Plaintiff 2’s transaction purpose, property status, and exchange rate fluctuations at the time, it would violate the suitability principle, and thus, Defendant 2 bank did not sufficiently explain the risk to the Plaintiff.

E) Sub-decisions

Thus, the plaintiff 2's assertion that the defendant Il Bank violated the suitability principle while entering into each contract between the plaintiff 2 and the plaintiff 2, and caused damage to the plaintiff 2 in violation of the duty to explain is without merit.

However, Defendant New Bank violated the suitability principle and its duty to explain while entering into the instant contract with Plaintiff 2, thereby causing damages to the said Plaintiff and the Plaintiff Company comprehensively taking over all the claims and obligations arising out of the instant contract. As such, Defendant New Bank is liable to compensate the Plaintiff Company that received comprehensive claims and obligations as above for damages arising out of the instant contract.

3) Scope of damages

The losses incurred by the Plaintiff Company in violation of the suitability principle and the duty to explain in entering into the instant contract. According to the overall purport of the statement and arguments set forth in the evidence No. 6-1 through No. 5, the details paid by Plaintiff 2 and the Plaintiff Company to the Defendant New Bank by November 5, 2008 are as listed below [Attachment No. 5]. Accordingly, the losses incurred by the Plaintiff Company until November 5, 2008 due to the instant contract are KRW 949,240,000.

On June 5, 2008, the date included in the main sentence of this Act, and July 7, 2008, the sum of the September 5, 2008, September 2008, 2008, on September 5, 2008, and on November 5, 2008, the amount (won) paid for October 46,80,000 for September 67,80,000,000 for 67,80,000,82,800,000,000, 14,50,500,356,440,440, 290, 900, 90, 949, 240,000,000 for September 5, 2008.

Meanwhile, in full view of the facts as seen earlier, Plaintiff 2 understood and understood the structure and content of each currency option contract of this case several times from the Defendants. In particular, prior to the conclusion of the instant contract with Defendant New Bank, Plaintiff 2 experienced risks arising from the instant contract by performing the obligation to sell twice as a result of the occurrence of losses from each contract. Although Defendant New Bank recommended the Plaintiff to conclude the instant contract in violation of the suitability principle, Plaintiff 2, even if Defendant New Bank recommended the Plaintiff to conclude the instant contract, he/she voluntarily decided to conclude the said contract under the judgment that the exchange rate decline from the purpose of compensating for losses. Plaintiff 2 suffered significant losses from the instant contract ③ The Plaintiff Company was also Defendant New Bank at the time of the occurrence of the instant contract, taking into account the fact that the global financial crisis that occurred in the sobarg base situation had significantly worked, it is reasonable to limit Plaintiff 2’s liability to compensate for damages against the Plaintiff Company of this case to 30% of the damages suffered by the Plaintiff.

Therefore, Defendant New Bank is obligated to pay the Plaintiff Company KRW 75,00,000, which is part of the amount of KRW 284,772,000 (=9,240,000 x 30%), which is the damage caused by the instant contract, to the Plaintiff Company.

6. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff company's conjunctive claim is accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and the plaintiffs' primary claim against the defendants, and the conjunctive claim against the defendant Il-il Bank by the plaintiff 2 is dismissed on the grounds of each ground, and 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 in which the exercising price is the same as in exchange for put options (the right of the 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 as in exchange for 1:0. In the case of a forward-end transaction, the fee to be received by the financial institution is imposed in the manner reflected in the agreed price, which is the terms of exchange at maturity, and thus 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 foreign currency transaction amount that a financial institution can purchase from an exporting company upon the exercise of a call option is set at a certain multiple ratio than the contract amount of put option that the exporting company can exercise against a financial institution. The amount of put option’s contract is a multiple increase compared to the contract amount of put option. The amount of put option’s contract of this case is 2.

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) It is a structure that establishes a “widow” structure of a month unit during which the period of observation to determine the fulfillment of the terms of options is to determine the occurrence of options for each observation period.

Note 6) Accordingly, financial institutions have the product name "Windowed KIK Participine FD', "Window Brierer Traget Form," "Window KIK", and "Window KIKK Fort Form," but the basic structure is the same.

Note 7) At the time, Korean experts or financial institutions at home and abroad have predicted the possibility of an increase in the exchange rate, but not only did they have predicted the increase in the exchange rate, but also most domestic and foreign experts or financial institutions at the same time have predicted the continuous decline in the exchange rate. It seems that the predictability of the possibility of an increase in the exchange rate was disregarded.

Note 8) There is a dispute between the parties as to whether it is reasonable to make the difference between the theoretical value of put options and put options theoretical value, but the parties concerned are the “fee” for convenience.

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

10) According to each entry in Eul's 34 through 38 (including each serial number if any) the closing rate of interest rate swap products is about 0.15% from total contract amount to about 0.60%, and the closing rate due to the sale of fund products is about 1% from total payment amount to about 1.82%, and the exchange commission is about 1% from total exchange amount.