Of the plaintiffs, the part against the defendant chip Bank Co., Ltd. regarding the conjunctive claim.

1. As to the ground of appeal by Defendant C&T Bank (hereinafter “Defendant C&C”) against Plaintiff A Co., Ltd. (the former trade name is the Plaintiff Co., Ltd.; hereinafter “Plaintiff A”)

A. (1) As to the ground of appeal No. 2, where a bank enters into a currency option contract with an enterprise with a purpose of foreign exchange hedging, it shall not invite the relevant enterprise to enter into the currency option contract, and where soliciting transaction of over-the-counter derivatives with a high risk, it shall bear a more significant duty to protect customers compared to other financial institutions. As such, where a bank actively solicits a currency option contract which causes an excessive risk in light of the management situation of the relevant enterprise in violation of such duty

In this context, whether a bank solicits the conclusion of a currency option contract inappropriate for a company should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the business conditions, such as the expected foreign currency inflow amount of the company in question, the asset status including the size of assets and sales, the necessity of exchange hedging, whether the foreign currency inflow exceeds the foreign currency input amount, transaction purpose, experience, knowledge or understanding of the contract in question, and other exchange hedging contracts.

(2) We examine the facts revealed by the reasoning of the lower judgment and the evidence duly admitted and the suitability of the second contract in accordance with the aforementioned legal doctrine.

The second contract is a contract that reflects the loss that the Plaintiff would incur through the first contract. If the contract amount of the options and the four options contract amount of the four options contract concluded by the Plaintiff with the National Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “National Bank”) are combined, the Plaintiff A.