손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
1. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant, as an investment solicitor, entered into an agreement for unfair solicitation in violation of Article 49 subparag. 2 of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (hereinafter “Capital Markets Act”) against the Plaintiff, who is an ordinary investor, as an investment solicitor, on consignment of trading authority in violation of Article 52(2)4 of the Capital Markets Act and Article 59(1) of the Capital Markets Act, to compensate for losses. As such, the Defendant is liable for compensating the Plaintiff for the said damages as the Plaintiff sustained KRW 71,017,442 through equity investment from November 28, 2012 to December 19, 2013.
2. Relevant statutes and relevant legal principles
A. Relevant statutes: as stated in the relevant statutes of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act.
B. The relevant legal doctrine and the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (hereinafter “Capital Markets Act”) recommended investment by means of an agreement to provide a conclusive judgment and compensate for losses, etc., but in order to establish tort liability against investors in the event of an investment loss, the act of inducing investment should be deemed as an act of violating the duty to protect customers, by comprehensively taking into account the transactional act and transaction method, customer’s investment situation, risk of transaction, and the degree of explanation as to the risk inevitably accompanying the relevant solicitation to a general investor who lacks experience, or by actively soliciting a transaction involving excessive risk in light of customer’s investment situation.
3. In light of the following circumstances, it is difficult to find that the Defendant entered into an agreement with the Plaintiff on unfair solicitation in violation of Article 49 subparag. 2 of the Capital Markets Act, consignment and compensation for losses in violation of Article 52 subparag. 4 of the Capital Markets Act and Article 59(1) of the said Act. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion cannot be accepted.
Examining the overall context, expression, etc. of the Defendant’s text messages (Evidence A No. 2, 4, 5, 17) presented by the Plaintiff as the evidence of unfair solicitation, the Defendant.