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

The reasoning for the court's explanation on this case is as follows: "59,00" of cumulative profit and loss No. 16 of the judgment of the court of first instance No. 2 shall be 590,000; "25,000" of 23, 18 and 25, shall be "25,000"; and "25,000" of 23, 18 and 25, shall be cited as "25,000"; except for the addition of the following determination as to the plaintiff's assertion, it shall be cited as the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance; therefore,

2. Additional determination

A. The Defendant’s new and new common trading practices conform to the deel hedging principle.

1) The plaintiff's assertion

Inasmuch as the shares are to be adjusted according to the delta value according to the fluctuation in the stock prices of delta hedging, the shares can be adjusted accordingly on the day following the day when the delta value based on the closing price of the pertinent shares on a specific day is calculated, and it is common to liquidate the shares slowly over several trading days in close vicinity with the maturity of the ES transaction subject to the Hague. Nevertheless, the Defendant, on the same day, did not hold shares under the closing price as of the day immediately preceding the computation, and did not hold shares under the closing price as of the day immediately preceding the delta value and traded shares in an speculative manner. Accordingly, the Defendant increased the shares owned by the de facto common principle at the maturity of the instant stock-linked securities. Accordingly, the Defendant cannot be seen as either artificially concentrating the de facto market price at the risk of damage due to the sale of the instant shares by a single time.

2) Determination

Since the ES products, such as the instant stock-linked securities, are linked to the stock price fluctuation of underlying assets, the issuer is required to conduct hedge transactions (or take over hedge transactions to other financial institutions, etc.) and manage risks arising from the stock price fluctuation. The core of deel hedging as a means of such hedge transactions is to adjust the quantity of underlying assets in accordance with the changes in deel value.

Therefore, the operator of the dele hedging should calculate the number of stocks to be held on the day according to the deel value on the day, and the deel value can be calculated promptly by the calculation system, so it does not necessarily mean that it can be calculated immediately after the end of the day. Therefore, it is difficult to accept the Plaintiff’s argument that the deel value based on a specific closing price should be met only on the day following the day when the deel value is calculated. However, as the operator of the dele hedging does not continuously take place 24 hours but the transaction is suspended due to the closing of the stock market on the day, the number of stocks according to the deel value on the day after the closing of the stock market on the day. If the number of stocks to be held on the day following the day by the closing of the stock market on the day is to be maintained according to the deel value by a particular closing price on the day, this would not necessarily be consistent with the purpose of avoiding the risks arising from the changes by the following day.

In addition, in the case of a product whose profits and losses are affected by the fulfillment of the pre-determined price condition, such as the instant stock exchange-linked securities, if the stock price changes in the place near the maturity to the redemption standard price, the above structure leads to a rapid increase and rapid decline, and thus, it does not necessarily lead to the settlement of the amount in close vicinity to the maturity and on several transaction days. As seen in the table of Section 22 of the judgment of the court of first instance, the Defendant held the new common share as an underlying asset of the ES exchange contract operated by the Defendant, with the new common share of the KSS 20,00 to 30,000 shares, and it is difficult to view the new common share price increase of 45,651 won at the rate of 20,000 to 40,000,000 won, 50,000 won, 50,000 won, 50,000 won, 50,000 won, 205.

On the other hand, on October 7, 2009, the reference date of the instant case, the Defendant sold 503,936 shares through GNP and sold 50,960 shares in a single unit of sale (14:5,50 to 15:00). In light of the following circumstances, the Defendant only sold 5,60 shares in a single unit of sale (14:5,50 to 15:00 shares), 5,611 shares in a swap contract (the deel value of the instant stock-linked securities becomes zero at the end of the stock market on the reference date of the instant case) and there is a need to sell new shares of 653,313 shares (7,460 shares - 86,147 shares) on October 7, 2009 (the deel value of the instant stock-linked securities at the end of the stock market on the reference date of the instant case), 30,960 shares in a single unit of sale (14:5,6,111 or 3638 shares).

① From July 2009, the Defendant was also under investigation by the Financial Supervisory Service regarding the Els hedge trading from around July 1, 2009 with respect to the hedge trading of financial institutions. In addition, on October 1, 2009, the Korea Exchange implemented the “Els hedge trading guidelines” with the main contents, such as the review on the appropriateness of the hedge trading scale, intensive monitoring at least 25% of the closing price, and the review on the degree of diversification of the hedge trading at the time of hedge trading. Accordingly, on October 7, 2009, the Defendant requested the Defendant to sell 300,000 new shares trading volume and BNP securities in accordance with the delta value, and thus, it is difficult to view that each of the above trading volume and 10% of the average trading volume + 10,000 square meters of the average trading volume within the scope of each trading volume + 10% of the total trading volume.

② As of the instant base date, treatment securities sold 256,386 common shares, BNP securities sold 247,50 common shares, and 2,651,528 common shares, 9.67% (256,386/2,651,528) and 9.34% (247,550/2,651,528) of the total trading volume of 25,960 common shares, and 256,010 gross trading volume, 256,010 gross trading volume, 256,000 gross trading volume, 256,000 gross trading volume, 256,000 gross trading volume, 256,000 gross trading volume, 360% of the Defendant’s order, 106,000 gross trading volume, 360% of the Defendant’s single trading volume, 50% of the total trading volume (256,000.7% of the instant trading volume).

③ As above, in order to implement VWP instructions, it is necessary to sell at the market price at each time of sale, and this is the same as in the case of a single provisional sale, and even in order to meet the stock ownership ratio according to the deel hedging, it is difficult to deem that there was an intention to decline in the share price on the ground that the market price was high. Meanwhile, Defendant 10% + Defendant’s 10% + 5,457 won higher than the total quantity ordered to sell, and even if considering the transaction price, Defendant sold new shares at VWP price (Treatment 45,498 won, BNP 45,484 won) at each time of sale, and Defendant’s transactions at the Korea Exchange was also in compliance with the above guidelines.

(4) As seen earlier, when the new common share share price was set below 45,651 won of the redemption price at the time of maturity of the instant stock-linked securities, the Defendant increased the shares of 54,860 shares of 54,860 shares of 54,860 shares of 54,860 shares of 54,00 shares of 55,651 shares of 45,651 shares of 209 ( October 5, 2009, KRW 44,500, October 6, 2009, and KRW 537,239 shares of 54,860 shares of 54,860 shares of 739,460 shares of 6,00 shares of 739,460 shares of 20,000 shares of 739,460 shares of 20,000 shares of the instant stock-linked securities, if the Defendant had not satisfied the redemption condition of the instant common share purchase.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant’s new and new common share trading does not coincide with the principle of deelacy or that constitutes an artificial market price manipulation is without merit.

B. Whether it can be justified that the Defendant’s transaction in accordance with the deel hedging principle affects the underlying asset market price.

1) The plaintiff's assertion

The derivatives, such as the stock exchange-linked securities, are determined to link the price of the derivatives with the spot assets price, so that the effect on the spot assets price should be limited due to transactions related to derivatives, are “the external appearance of derivatives.” In addition, it is not compulsory under the laws and regulations governing deel hedging, and in actual operation, it is not reasonable that the operator has a reasonable discretion in accordance with the strategy to determine the timing of trading, trading volume, asking price, etc. Therefore, it cannot be justified for the sole reason that the stock price is the deel hedging transaction. The Defendant sold large-scale shares to the market price of the instant base date, which is the sensitive time when the new common share price falls near the redemption price of the instant stock exchange-linked securities, and lowers the closing price on the basis of the redemption price because it was obviously conducted in accordance with the intent to manipulate the market price, and thus, it cannot be justified on the ground that it was a deel hedging transaction.

2) Determination

As seen earlier, the Defendant’s above deel hedge trading cannot be deemed to have been based on the intent to manipulate the market price. However, since the Defendant’s deel hedge trading influenced the new bank’s common share price, which is an underlying asset, and thus, it appears that the redemption condition of the instant securities was unnecessary, it is necessary to review the issue of whether to allow the instant hedging trading that has an impact on the price of the Els’s underlying asset.

As seen earlier, ES products are securities connected to the stock price fluctuation of underlying assets, the issuing party must conduct hedge transactions and control the risk caused by the stock price fluctuation. Moreover, managing financial institutions to prevent exposure to a certain level or more due to the change of market variables is legally obligated, and if the degree of risk exceeds a certain limit, various sanctions are imposed (see Articles 420 and 422 of the Capital Markets Act) and transactions of over-the-counter derivatives are prohibited (see, e.g., note 19 of the first instance judgment). Therefore, taking necessary measures to ensure that the side that issued the ES products, which are securities connected to the stock price fluctuation, conducts hedge transactions that control the risk.

section 48.3.

In general, it is done by a financial institution that sells derivatives to trade its underlying assets, and it is done by means of controlling the volume of underlying assets in accordance with changes in the delta value. As long as the underlying assets are traded and hedging, it is not possible to avoid any difference in the degree and affect the price of underlying assets due to hedge transactions. If the 'the external nature of derivatives, the effect of which on the price of underlying assets should be limited in the hedge transactions,' is embodied in full form, the 'the external nature of derivatives, the effect of which on the price of underlying assets should be limited in the hedge transactions', it is difficult to realize the external nature of derivatives in an abnormal form (if the hedging transactions are conducted through the trading of underlying assets, it may be possible to some extent if the underlying assets are fully traded, but in that case, the ls products shall also be maintained) Article 30 of the Capital Markets Act (Maintenance of Financial Soundness).

(1) Each financial investment business entity and other financial investment business entity specified by Presidential Decree shall maintain an amount obtained by subtracting the aggregate amount referred to in subparagraph 2 from the aggregate amount referred to in subparagraph 1 (hereinafter referred to as "net operating capital") by converting the risks inherent in the assets and liabilities of the financial investment business entity or accompanying the business affairs into an amount (hereinafter referred to as "total risks") at least the aggregate amount (hereinafter referred to as "total risks"):

1. Capital, reserves and other amounts prescribed by Ordinance of the Prime Minister;

(2) Specific standards and methods for calculating net operating capital and total risks under paragraph (1) shall be prescribed and publicly notified by the Financial Services Commission. Regulations 3-6 (Definition of Terms) for the financial investment business.

The definitions of terms used in this Chapter shall be as follows:

2. The term "market risk amount" means the potential loss that a financial investment business entity can join due to a fluctuation in market prices, such as the price, interest, and exchange rate of securities, etc. in a market;

8. In cases of options, the term "deel value" means the amount of fluctuations in the option price according to one unit price of underlying assets. Derivatives related to stocks under Article 3-16 of the Regulations on Financial Investment Services shall be calculated by calculating the individual risk amount and the amount of the general test after decomposition through the capture of the underlying assets in question by the following methods:

4. In regard to options, it is not clear that such options are the essential premise for hedge transactions, by multiplying the market value of underlying assets by the delta value of options. They are bound to be limited only to underlying assets).

The actual reason is that it is difficult to find out the same hedging product at each time in the market with different maturity dates and base prices, respectively, and for the purpose of saving the hedging cost, it seems that de facto hedging method is being used to manage risks arising from the underlying assets of the same class in a single pool, and it is difficult to find out any other hedging method that does not affect the hedging price in the circumstances where the hedging price is essential for financial institutions to sell derivatives, and thus, it is difficult to find out any other hedging method that does not affect the hedging price in its underlying assets in order to prevent any change in its underlying assets from being redeemed by the issuer. On the other hand, the Defendant, as a result, should not be able to resolve the conflicts between the two legal interests of the issuer and the issuer, which are the redemption method of the underlying assets, from the hedging price.

Therefore, the above argument that the defendant's deel hedging transactions had influenced the market price of underlying assets is not reasonable.

(c) Whether the fraudulent unfair trading, interference with the fulfillment of conditions, or infringement of conditional rights is concerned;

1) The plaintiff's assertion

Although the Defendant’s act does not constitute a market price manipulation under Article 176(4) of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (hereinafter “Capital Markets Act”), it cannot be permitted by social norms as an act that significantly affected the price of the shares that the Defendant should independently form in the market for his own interest, and thus, it cannot be permitted by social norms. Thus, Article 178(1)1-2 of the Capital Markets Act (Prohibition of Unfair Trading, etc.) Article 178 of the Capital Markets Act (hereinafter “Capital Markets Act”).

(1) No one shall commit any of the following acts in connection with trading (including public offering, private placement, and sale in case of securities; hereafter the same shall apply in this Article and Article 179) or other transaction of financial investment instruments:

1. Unfair trading by using an unfair means, scheme, or trick, or an act that interferes with the fulfillment of the conditions under Article 150 of the Civil Act, or an act that infringes on conditional rights (illegal act) and thus, the defendant must compensate the plaintiff for the loss caused thereby.

2) Determination

As seen earlier, it is inevitable to view that the Defendant’s de facto hedge transaction is an essential act under the legal obligations, etc. for the management of the risks of financial institutions, and thereby, it affects the price of underlying assets. Therefore, it is inevitable to view that the Defendant’s de facto hedge transaction is an act that interferes with fraudulent unfair trading, fulfillment of the conditions, or infringement of conditional rights, solely on the ground that the Defendant’s aforementioned de facto hedge transaction did not affect the new common share share price in the course of performing the de facto hedge transaction, thereby failing to meet the redemption standard price of the instant stock-linked securities.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without reason to examine further.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just with this conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Judges Lee Jong-chul

Judges are accommodated in judges;