1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of this case cited in the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to the determination of the lower court as to the conjunctive defense added by the defendant in this court, and therefore, it is cited in accordance with the main sentence of

2. Additional determination

A. (1) According to the Defendant’s assertion of liability for damages under the former Capital Markets Act, an executive partner of a private equity fund shall not engage in an unfair solicitation, such as entering into an agreement on guaranteeing principal or interest, etc., for investors, and shall be obliged to provide investors with accurate information about the subject matter of investment, methods of investment, and recovery of investment.

However, the Solomon Savings Bank, the managing partner of the Solomon Private Equity Fund (hereinafter “ Solomon PEF”), recommended the Defendant to purchase the instant equity shares, concluded a performance undertaking to guarantee the Defendant to exercise put options at the price guaranteed the investment principal and interest, and promised to execute the instant two loans for the purpose of raising the funds for purchase of equity shares in return for promising the Defendant to execute the instant two loans, and the interest rate was also an unfair solicitation act, such as recommending the method of coordinating the instant one loan linked with the instant one loan contract and proposing the method of actively preparing the investment amount.

In addition, the Solomon Savings Bank is null and void of the instant performance guarantee in violation of the former Capital Markets Act, which is a mandatory provision. Thus, even if the Defendant exercised put-off options, it did not provide an explanation to the Defendant even if the said bank was unable to implement the put-off options, and the value of the instant equity shares at the time is anticipated to continuously decline. Therefore, even if the purchase of the instant equity shares was highly dangerous investment, it did not explain the risk.

Therefore, the defendant is now the Solomon Savings Bank.