1. The term “the term “the term” means “the term” means “the term “the term” means “the term” means “the term or “the term” means “the term.

Korean Standards Bank of Korea (Attorneys Kim So-pin et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

June 25, 2010

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. The defendant,

A. The amount of KRW 6,052,600,000 and the amount equivalent to 20% per annum from the day following the day of service of the copy of the application for modification of the purport of the claim as of June 25, 2010 to the day of complete payment with respect to the Plaintiff Weather Industries;

B. The amount of 2,417,480,00 won and the amount equivalent to 20% per annum from the day following the day of service of the copy of the application for modification of the claim as of June 25, 2010 to the day of complete payment, to the day of service of the copy of the written application for modification of the claim as of June 25,

C. 5,899,450,000 won and 20% interest per annum from the day following the day of service of the copy of the application for amendment of the claim as of June 25, 2010 to the day of complete payment, to the Plaintiff Mana Co., Ltd.

D. To the Plaintiff D.S. L.S. Co., Ltd., 70,90,940,000 won and the amount equivalent to 20% interest per annum from the day following the day of service of the copy of the application for modification of the purport of the claim as of June 25, 2010 to the day of complete payment.

2. As between the Plaintiff’s mother and the Defendant

A. The obligation to pay KRW 1,785,680,000 to the Defendant of the Plaintiff mother-Sa Co., Ltd. based on a currency option contract concluded on November 21, 2007 (attached Form 3(4));

B. The obligation to pay KRW 1,644,300,000 to the Defendant of the Plaintiff mother-Sa Co., Ltd. based on the currency option contract concluded on January 11, 2008 (attached Form 3(6))

I confirm that each does not exist.

1. Basic facts

A. Status of the parties

1) The Plaintiff Weather Industry (hereinafter “Plaintiff Weather Industry”) was established on August 20, 1980 as a company manufacturing and exporting motherter special skill uniforms, and Plaintiff Weather Sports Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff Weather Sports”) used the physical facilities of Plaintiff Weather Industry as the company established by dividing Plaintiff Weather Business Division of Plaintiff Weather Industry on December 29, 2006.

2) The Plaintiff mother-U.S. Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff mother-U.S.”) is a stock-listed corporation established on December 28, 1967 for the main purpose of manufacturing, selling, exporting, etc. phrases and office equipment, and the total amount of assets as of December 31, 2007, as of December 31, 2007, KRW 132.8 billion, annual sales amounting to KRW 191.9 billion.

3) The Plaintiff DSELD Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff DSELD”) is a company with total assets of KRW 188.6 billion as of December 31, 2007 and annual sales of KRW 610.9 billion as of December 31, 2007, which is a KOSDAQ-listed corporation established on October 1, 1998 for the main purpose of manufacturing, selling, exporting, etc. electronic devices.

4) The Defendant is a bank established pursuant to the Banking Act.

B. Conclusion of each contract of this case

The Plaintiffs, as indicated in the table 1, concluded a contract with the Defendant on the currency option contract for the United States currency (USD, hereinafter referred to as "USD") (hereinafter referred to as "USD") (in case of a common name, "each contract of this case" shall be referred to as "the contract of this case" or "No. 4-9 contract" in accordance with the order of priority when they are individually referred to, and the contract of this case shall not be distinguished when they are collectively referred to as "the contract of this case", and only "the contract of this case" shall be referred to as "the contract of this case"). The detailed contents of each contract of this case of this case shall be as stated in the case of the Plaintiff flag industry [Attachment 1], in the case of the Plaintiff flag industry [Attachment 2], in the case of the Plaintiff Gaba, [Attachment 3], and in the case of

본문내 포함된 표 순번 계약자 체결일자 상품종류 계약 기간 계약금액 (원고) (월, 달러) 1 기도산업 2007. 11. 2. Windowed KIKO TURBO Participating + Anytime K.O Call Sell 2년 A:50만(lvg2) B:100만 2 기도 스포츠 2007. 11. 8. Windowed KIKO TURBO Participating + Anytime K.O Call Sell 2년 A:20만(lvg2) B:40만 3-1 2007. 8. 1. Window KIKO Turbo Participating Forward + Anytime Knock out 2년 A:25만(lvg2) B:50만 3-2 2007. 8. 10. Window KIKO Turbo Participating Forward + Anytime Knock out at expiry Knock in call 2년 A:25만(lvg2) B:50만 3-3 모나미 2007. 8. 16. Windowed KO Bonus Participating FWD with Rebate 2년 A:25만(lvg2) B:50만 3-4 2007. 11. 21. Window KIKO Turbo Participating Forward + Anytime Knock out 2년 A:30만(lvg2) B:60만 3-5 2008. 1. 3. Structured FX(Currency) Option A : Put Spread / B : Anytime KO Call Sell 20개월 A:30만 B:60만 3-6 2008. 1. 11. Windowed KO Bonus Participating FWD with Rebate 2년 A:25만(lvg2) B:50만 4-1 2007. 6. 13. Windowed KO Bonus PF Sell 1년 200만(lvg2) 4-2 2007. 6. 13. Extendible Windowed KI Enhanced PF Sell 3년 A:300만(lvg2) B,C:600만 4-3 2007. 10. 25. Extendible Windowed KO Bonus PF Sell 3년 A:만(lvg2) B:600만 4-4 2007. 11. 2. Window KI Enhanced Turbo Participating FWD + Anytime KO Call Sell 3년 A:100만(lvg2) B,C:200만 4-5 디에스 엘시디 2007. 11. 8. Window KI Enhanced Participating FWD + Anytime KO Call Sell 3년 A:100만(lvg2) B:200만 4-6 2007. 11. 12. Window KI Enhanced Turbo Participating FWD Anytime KO Call Sell 3년 A:100만(lvg2) B:200만 4-7 2008. 1. 7. Structured FX Option A : Put Spread / B : Anytime KO Call Sell 2년 A:100만 B:200만 4-8 2008. 1. 17. Structured FX Option A : Put Spread / B : Anytime KO Call Sell 2년 A:100만 B:200만 4-9 2008. 1. 22. Structured FX Option A : Put Spread / B : Anytime KO Call Sell 2년 A:100 B:200만

C. The structure of a so-called KIKO currency option contract and each of the contracts in this case

1) Based on the structure of simple futures exchange contract(s) and call options(s) or put options(s) options such as put options(s) or put options(s) in the form of simple futures exchange contract(s) (1). Based on the direction of the parties to a contract and the expectation or forecast of the future exchange rate fluctuations in the form of various forms(s) have been used in the past, the forward exchange(s) has been organized in various forms(s) in accordance with the direction of the parties to a contract and the expectation or forecast of the width, and s) has been used in the past. In addition, there have been a typical form of modified futures exchange(s) in the form of a modified gift exchange(s).

2) The so-called KIKO currency option contract is a kind of put options (7) during the modified futures exchange, which is basically a contract to exchange put options added to the terms and conditions, such as put options (Knock-Out note 8) and put options (Knock-in) terms and conditions, and put options (Knock-in note 9), and put options (in the case of a company’s side, put options from a bank and sell put options as a price for put options). Such KIKO currency option is a separate realistic contract that each contracting party pays for options by exchanging them, as in the case of simple futures exchange contracts or other modified futures exchange contracts, and thus, it is not a “zer” (hereinafter referred to as “cover options”).

3) From October 2004, the exchange rate drops, and at the same time, the original/US swap points (sap 11) entered mapp(-) in the latter part of 2007, and recorded the mapp (-) in the latter part of 2007, and -15 won lowers in the end of 2007 close to the quarterly point of profits and losses of the exporting company. This trend of exchange rate fluctuations led to the increase of interest in a currency option contract whose exchange rate is higher than a futures exchange rate. The so-called KIKO currency option contract is a kind of various forms of currency options contracts transacted on the basis of these circumstances.

4) Rights and duties under the so-called “basic KIKO currency option contract” (No. 4-1 contract)

Among them, the currency option contract, which is mainly traded in the market mainly and called by the plaintiffs as a KIKO currency option contract in the basic form, is "in 12) the Window KS KICO Form" or "Window Teget Form" (in each of the contracts of this case, the contract of this case constitutes the above type of currency option contract), which is a product composed of two times lebbree, and the observation period (unit period) is a product composed of one-month unit. The observation period (unit period) is divided into one month and the observation period of the conditions, which is the AB-E, and the settlement period is determined at the market exchange rate (hereinafter referred to as "the maturity exchange rate") at the maturity of each observation period, and the rights and obligations of the bank are not changed and extinguished as follows.

○ Even once a week with market exchange rate of 14) during the duration of observation, where the lower-level exchange rate falls short of the lower-level exchange rate (for example, the implementation of the conditions for the settlement of disputes).

- 당해 구간에 관한 계약은 실효된다(☞ 따라서 기업은 환위험에 노출된다).

○ During the observation period, where the market exchange rate is between the lower-end exchange rate (the forward-end exchange rate) and the upper-end exchange rate (the resale-end exchange rate).

- 기업의 풋옵션만 발생한다(☞ 따라서 기업은 해당 만기환율이 행사환율보다 낮은 경우에는 풋옵션을 행사함으로써 환차손을 방지할 수 있고, 만기환율이 행사환율보다 높은 경우에는 풋옵션을 행사하지 않고 시장에 외화를 매도하여 환차익을 얻을 수 있다)

○ In a case where, during the observation period, the market exchange rate does not fall below the lower-end exchange rate (the lower-end exchange rate) and was set at not less than a short-term exchange rate (the later-end resaleed exchange rate), it has been set at the same rate (the

- both put put options of companies and call options of banks.

- If the maturity exchange rate is lower than the exercising exchange rate: an enterprise may sell the contract amount to the bank at the exercising exchange rate.

- If the maturity exchange rate is above the exchange rate, an enterprise shall sell twice the contract amount to the bank at the exchange rate that is held by the enterprise.

5) Rights and duties pursuant to the so-called modified KIKO currency option contract

A) The remaining contracts of this case, other than Section 4-1 contracts, are divided into the entire contract period (AP) and the latter part (BP or B/C) and the latter part (B/CP). In the case of AP, in the case of BP or B/C, the terms and conditions of the contract are structureed in favor of the bank in favor of the bank (Article 4-2 and 4-3 contracts among them shall take effect by the week that the terms and conditions of the contract shall take effect by BP or B/C only under a specific condition) and the rights and duties of the company and the bank shall be as follows:

B) Category 1 (Types 1, 2, 3-1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 4-4, 5, 6)

The structure of ○ APP option contract is the same as the structure of the basic KIKO currency option contract. However, the contractual terms are more favorable to the company than the basic KIKO currency option contract, such as raising the exchange rate at which the company exercises put options, or compensating the company for a certain amount of 17) in the case where the company's put options are terminated due to the fulfillment of the conditions of put-in options (turo condition or Bronus condition).

○○ Bmt: The following rights and obligations are created according to the maturity exchange rate as it acquires a call option at a lower exchange rate than a bank: Provided, That if the market exchange rate falls below the lower exchange rate even once during the observation period, the contract on the relevant section and subsequent section will be fully effective (a nyme Knock-Out condition).

- If the maturity exchange rate is lower than the exercised exchange rate: the enterprise and the bank have no rights and obligations.

- If the maturity exchange rate is above the exercising exchange rate: the enterprise must sell the contract amount (two times the AP contract amount) at the exercising exchange rate.

C) Category 2 (Contract No. 4-2, 4-3)

The basic type structure is the same as the basic type structure. However, even if put options are terminated due to the fulfillment of the set-off clause, the contract terms such as compensating for the specified amount to the company is more favorable to the company than the basic type.

○○ Bmt or B/Cmt shall have a call option at an exercise rate lower than that of a bank. However, Bmt shall take effect only when the last section of Amt is at least the exercise rate (for example, -bent clause).

D) Category 3 (Types 3-5, 4-7, 8, 9)

○○ Amt is the form of put put put option in the form of put put put option. This is the form that the company purchases put option from the bank, purchases put option from the bank, and even the bank purchases put option from the company, and even if the maturity exchange rate is lower than the exercising exchange rate of the bank, the bank shall pay to the company a certain amount [the contract amount x (the short exercise exchange rate - the lower exercise exchange rate) only when it pays to the company a certain amount (the short exercise exchange rate).

- 만기환율이 상단행사환율(기업의 행사환율) 이상인 경우 : 기업이나 은행은 아무런 의무가 없다(☞기업이나 은행이 옵션을 행사할 이유가 없다).

- 만기환율이 하단행사환율(은행의 행사환율) 이상이고, 상단행사환율(기업의 행사환율)보다 낮은 경우 : 기업은 은행에 상단행사환율에 매도할 수 있다(☞기업이 환율 하락의 위험을 회피하게 된다).

- 만기환율이 하단행사환율(은행의 행사환율)보다 낮은 경우 : 은행은 기업에 {계약금액 × (상단행사환율 - 하단행사환율)}을 지급한다(☞기업과 은행이 모두 풋옵션을 행사하여 양자의 의무가 대등액에서 상계되어 기업이 은행으로부터 위 금액을 지급받을 수 있는 구조로, 기업은 그 범위 내에서 환율 하락의 위험을 회피할 수 있다).

○○ Bmt shall have a call option at a lower exchange rate: Provided, That when the market exchange rate falls below the lower exchange rate during the observation period, the contract on the relevant section and subsequent sections shall be fully invalidated. The same type of the above one is the same as the former one.

(d) The trend of exchange rate fluctuations;

From June 2007 to March 2008, the exchange rate of 1,050 Won/$1,100,000 from around 1,208 to around 940 Won was ever increased since March 18, 2008 to around 1,050 won after recording KRW 1,021 from around 18, 2008 to around 1,050 to around 208. The exchange rate of 1,100 to around 1,00 from around 208 to around 1, 200 to around 200 to around 1,50 to around 1, 200 to below the first 20 to around 2, 208.

【Fact-finding, Gap’s 1 through 10, 12, 24, 71 evidence, Eul’s 1 and 2 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the plaintiffs' claims

As a claim for restitution of unjust enrichment on the premise that each of the contracts of this case was primarily null and void, or cancelled or terminated, the Plaintiffs seek payment of the amount stated in the claim as part of the amount equivalent to the amount paid by the Plaintiffs due to the Defendant’s exercise of options based on each of the contracts of this case, as a claim for restitution of unjust enrichment on the premise that each of the contracts of this case was null and void, and that the Plaintiffs are seeking confirmation of the non-existence of obligations based on the contract of November 21, 2007 (No. 3-4) and the contract of January 11, 2008 (No. 3-6).

3. Determination as to the assertion that each of the instant contracts is invalid as unfair terms and conditions

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

1) Each of the instant contracts is prepared in a standardized form with the basic contents of each option’s exercise condition, contract amount, exercise price, settlement method, payment terms, etc. against many small and medium-sized exporters including the Plaintiffs. The content of the contract is characterized as a standardized contract under the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act (hereinafter “Standard Contracts Regulation Act”).

2) However, in view of ① there is a significant imbalance between the expected profit of both a customer company and a bank under the currency option contract, i.e., put option and call option value, and each of the companies under the KIKO currency option contract, as a result of the measurement of the 100 times or more of the numerical value, each of the instant contracts is unfair because it imposes excessive loss on the customer company. ② In addition, the Plaintiffs concluded each of the instant contracts in order to avoid exchange loss due to the decline in exchange rate, i.e., exchange risk, with the aim of avoiding exchange loss, and each of the instant contracts is likely to avoid exchange risk due to the fulfillment of exchange rate conditions. On the other hand, in the event of the fulfillment of the conditions for the KIKO currency option, each of the instant contracts constitutes an unfair contractual terms and conditions so that it can not be unfairly unfavorable to the customer company or unfairly restrict its rights to the customer company, and thus, constitutes an unfair contractual terms and conditions.

Therefore, each contract of this case is null and void because it constitutes an unfair standard contract contrary to the principle of good faith as stipulated in Article 6(1) of the Act on the Regulation of Terms

B. Whether each of the instant contracts constitutes a standardized contract

1) Criteria for judgment

First, with respect to whether each of the contracts of this case is subject to the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions, it refers to "a standardized contract which is subject to the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions" that is "the content of a contract prepared in advance by either party to the contract to enter into a contract with a large number of other parties, regardless of its name, form or scope (Article 2 (1) of the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions). In a case where one party to the contract prepared a contract in advance in a certain form to enter into the contract with a large number of other parties and presented it to one party, and the other party had an opportunity to adjust its own interest by negotiating a specific clause with the other party, if the other party has an opportunity to enter into the contract, the specific clause is not subject to the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions. (See Supreme Court Decisions 2005Da74863, Feb. 1, 2008; 208Da16950, Jul. 10, 2008, etc.).

2) Determination

A) However, as seen earlier, the specific contents of each contract of this case, such as the contract amount, exercise rate, short exchange rate, lower exchange rate, lower-class exchange rate, and the contract term, which are the major contract terms among the contents of each contract of this case, are recognized as having been determined by individual negotiations between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant. Thus, regardless of whether there exists any defect in declaration of intent in the process of such decision, each contract of this case cannot be deemed as a standardized contract of this case.

B) The Plaintiffs asserted that the basic structure of each of the contracts of this case, as seen earlier, constitutes a standardized contract under the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions. However, even if the Defendant was prepared in advance in order to conclude a contract with multiple companies, the structure of each of the contracts of this case itself does not generate any rights and duties between the parties, and the structure itself does not constitute a standardized contract under the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions, since the terms and conditions of transaction, that is, the contract amount, exchange rate, exchange rate, chip, exchange rate, chip, exchange rate, chip, premium rate, and contract term, etc., which are concluded with each of the contracts of this case, are the contents of the contract

C) On the other hand, as expected profits that both an enterprise and a bank are expected to have, as seen earlier, each option price or theoretical value is calculated according to the terms and conditions of a contract determined by individual negotiations between an enterprise and a bank, and market information at the time of the contract. As such, it cannot be determined without considering such terms and conditions of a contract, market information, imbalance or fairness between options that an enterprise and a bank receive without considering market information, and even according to the Plaintiffs’ assertion, the difference is significant as a result of measurement of VaR based on the completed contract itself, and thus, it cannot be readily concluded that there is a difference between an enterprise and a bank’s respective VaR arising from a currency option contract, such as each of the instant contracts.

3) Sub-determination

Therefore, the plaintiffs' assertion that each of the contracts in this case constitutes unfair terms and conditions under the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions cannot be accepted.

C. Whether the structure of each contract of this case is unfair

1) However, in addition, we examine whether the structure of each of the instant contracts, as seen above, can be seen as an unfair structure contrary to the good faith principle.

2) According to the structure of the Plaintiffs, the structure of profits and losses arising from the exchange rate fluctuation basically follows: ① in the case where the exchange rate falls below the exchange rate set due to the decline below the exchange rate set, the company’s put option becomes extinct and the company’s exchange risk avoidance function on the said section is lost (section 1); ② in the case where the exchange rate set up between the exchange rate set up by the company and the exchange rate set up between the market put option and the market put option (i.e., the company’s sale of foreign currency to the bank at the exchange rate higher than the market exchange rate) while at the same time benefiting from the exchange risk (section 2); ③ in the case where the company’s exchange rate set up between the exchange rate set up and the exchange rate set up between the bank’s exchange rate at the exchange rate set at the exchange rate set at the exchange rate set at the same time and the company’s exchange rate set at the exchange rate set at the 4th exchange rate set at the exchange rate set at the exchange rate set at the market (i.e., the exchange rate set at the market rate set at the 4th exchange rate set).

In addition, if the contract term is divided into A/B wave or A/B/C wave, the B/C wave, which falls under the latter part of the contract term, is disadvantageous to the company compared to the contract term of AP, such as where only the bank receives call options at the exercise exchange rate lower than the exercise exchange rate of AP, or where the exchange rate falls below the exchange rate of AP, or where the exchange rate falls below the exchange rate of PPP due to the due process of the PPP, the whole section becomes invalid (the fulfillment of the PPP).

On the other hand, the currency option contract, such as the instant contract, is designed more considerably than the theoretical value of options acquired by companies, such as the Plaintiffs, by the banks as the Defendant, compared to the theoretical value of options acquired by the companies, such as the Plaintiffs, and thus, the difference amount is indicated as “in a manner” even though the banks would have received the difference amount, and is deemed as an appearance that could be mistaken as if there was no price for such a e-mail or option transaction.

In this structure, the KIKO currency option contract itself seems to be disadvantageous to the company that entered into a contract for the purpose of avoiding exchange risk.

3) However, in order to determine whether the structure of a contract itself loses fairness, the structure that is unfavorable to either party to the contract should not be seen as removing only a part of the structure unfavorable to either party to the contract as seen earlier, but rather, the overall content of the contract should be comprehensively taken into account, such as the contractual terms and conditions associated with the completed contract terms, the content of the individual agreement included in the same contract, and the mutual relationship with other contract provisions.

In particular, if the profit and loss of a contracting party is directly linked to the indefinite elements such as future exchange rate fluctuations, and the quid pro quo relationship is formed based on the probability and prediction of such dynamic elements and the overall evaluation of the degree of risk acceptance accordingly, the conditions that were the background of the conclusion of the contract, including external environments, should be comprehensively taken into account. Accordingly, if the structure or provision of the contract cannot be deemed unfair at the time of the conclusion of the contract as a result of the determination, it cannot be said that, in principle, it would be matters to be considered in judging the suitability and fairness to achieve the purpose of the contracting party.

4) From this perspective, considering the following circumstances, the contract cannot be deemed unfair solely on the ground that the structure of the currency option contract, such as the instant contract, is partly disadvantageous to the Plaintiffs.

A) As indicated in each of the instant contracts, the Roco option contract, which each contracting party exchanges options, is structured to equal expected profits between the company and the bank, taking into account the probability of exchange rate fluctuations. This is to add to the call option of the bank, or to increase the exchange rate instead of adding the conditions of put options to the company’s put options, or for long-term contract duration, to increase the exchange rate by dividing the contract term into A/B wave or A/C wave, thereby favorable to the bank, rather than favorable to the company’s contract terms, it is difficult to attach the conditions of put options to the call option, to attach the surveillance period, or to increase the possibility of extinguishing put options or the possibility of using put options, instead of lowering the exchange rate, to the company’s put options. Therefore, it is difficult to see that the Roco option is unfair to reduce the exchange rate of put options or to exercise options, which are called to the company.

B) For the same reason, when the market exchange rate of each of the contracts of this case falls below the exchange rate set forth in the 200-year relationship, the contract’s effect terminates (section 1) and the market exchange rate of each of the contracts of this case includes a period disadvantageous to the Plaintiffs (BP or B/C) such as (i) the company’s loss may be incurred due to the conditions of the contract, or (ii) the bank takes a call option only during the contract term; and (ii) the company’s loss may not be avoided or avoid exchange risk at a certain exchange rate or during a certain period of exchange or at a disadvantage to the company. However, even if there are unfavorable parts to the company such as (BP or B/C) the company’s occurrence of exchange risk at a certain exchange rate fluctuation section (high rate of exchange), it is difficult to view the exchange risk as being favorable to the company (section 2), and (section 3), exchange risk, exchange rate or common KIKO, exchange risk, and thus, it is difficult to view the same structure and profit of both banks as the contract of this case.

C) Meanwhile, Article 6(2)3 of the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions provides that "a clause that limits essential rights of a contract to the extent that it is impossible to achieve the purpose of the contract" is presumed to be unfair. "the purpose of the contract" or "the essential rights of the contract" as stipulated in the above provision refers to the performance or realization of payment and consideration under the contract, not the party's subjective intent, purpose, and purpose. However, even if the exchange rate falls below the exchange rate set up in the B/B/A/C due to the plaintiffs' extinction of put options, the plaintiffs' exchange risks are exposed to exchange risks, not to avoid all risks due to the decline in exchange rates, but to avoid all risks due to the plaintiffs' decline in exchange rates, each of the above contract in this case is not intended to avoid exchange rates, but to avoid exchange risks on their own and to avoid exchange risks to the extent that there is a high possibility of avoiding exchange risks, or to prevent any changes in the entire contract terms and conditions from being subject to exchange with each of the above unfair terms and conditions in each of the above sections.

D) Meanwhile, according to the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 66, 67, 165 through 169, Eul evidence Nos. 24, 63, 96 through 9, and 119 (including various numbers), appraiser Nos. 24, 96 through 9, and 119, each appraisal result and the entire purport of arguments, each of the appraisal results and arguments by appraiser Nos. 2 and 1 reflects the cost borne by the bank in the option theory acquired by the bank as a contract of this case. Ultimately, the bank receives the margin equivalent to the difference between the theoretical value of the option acquired by the company and the option theory acquired by the bank, as net profit, as well as the cost of management (including exchange rate fluctuations, etc.), and whether the above cost is an unfair trading act or any unfair trading act or any unfair trading act or any material profit incidental thereto, regardless of whether it is an unfair trading act or any unfair trading act or any material profit incidental thereto, it can be acknowledged that the bank is not subject to the foregoing circumstances.

① In light of the market risk management cost (dynamic hedge cost), a bank holding a foreign currency option by entering into a currency option contract, such as the instant contract, has been engaged in counter-transaction to avoid the risk to the circulation of currency held for risk management due to such circulation holding. A bank that is required to set forth the limit of foreign currency circulation that a bank holding a foreign exchange transaction provision and maintain soundness in foreign exchange is required through counter-transaction (on the other hand, from the standpoint of an enterprise that is the other party to a currency option contract, it cannot be said that it is necessary to transfer expenses to a bank for counter-transaction because it is possible to manage exchange risk by itself by means of adequate setting of contract amount, etc.). Therefore, such expenses cannot be deemed unfair in itself to reflect the price of options.

However, there may be a way to hedge each transaction by holding a margin transaction, which is opposite to the transaction that is entered into with a customer as a hedge method through a transaction that is identical to the type and conditions of the transaction entered into with a customer as a hedge method through a bank’s opposite transaction. There may be a way to hedging each transaction by combining each transaction into a cluster. Generally, it is difficult for a bank to carry out a currency option transaction at each time it enters into a contract through an individual negotiation with a company. In reality, it is difficult for a bank to manage the entire currency derivatives transaction into a cluster and manage the entire currency derivatives transaction into a scenario, and it is impossible for the bank to take advantage of the risks affecting the option scenario’s value as an element (e.g., direction, interest rate, change, etc.). In such case, it is impossible for the bank to separately calculate the hedge cost (market risk management cost) for each individual currency derivatives transaction to take into account the specific price of the contract itself without reflecting the specific amount of risk acquisition in the specific market price.

(2) Regarding the cost of credit risk management, the cost of credit risk management is naturally imposed on an amount [In Article 30(3) of the Regulation on Supervision of Banking Business, Article 30(3) imposes an obligation to assess and manage credit risks that may arise from various transactions on a financial institution in the event of default] calculated according to a certain method in all credit offering acts (e.g., Expos (Expos, the amount exposed to credit risk) x default rate x loss rate] (Article 30(3) of the Regulation on Supervision of Banking Business, it is also subject to the obligation to assess and manage the risks that may arise from various transactions on a financial institution). As such, it cannot be deemed unreasonable to consider the risk of credit in such option

However, the method of setting up a security by taking such credit risk into account, the method of receiving a certain amount as a consideration for credit risk, and the method of reflecting the price of options acquired by an enterprise, and the method of reflecting the option price itself can be determined by reflecting the credit risk of the other party to the transaction, reflecting the option theory itself without considering the credit risk of the other party to the transaction, and then adding the option risk to the subsequent credit risk. However, there is no ground to readily conclude that any of the methods is appropriate or inappropriate (i.e., determining the option value). Therefore, it cannot be said that the bank acquires the option price by reflecting the credit risk at the option price of the option received by an enterprise.

(3) On the other hand, since the market risk management expenses and credit risk management expenses are determined based on the purpose, management ability, market situation, etc. set by policy decisions by a bank, which is a manager of monetary derivatives, it cannot be uniformly determined as to which cost should be set to an extent fair or appropriate.

④ Enterprises are engaged in the transaction of monetary derivatives, such as each contract of this case, with the aim of avoiding exchange risk, or for minimizing exchange marginal profits or minimizing exchange marginal profits, while banks are engaged in the transaction of monetary derivatives, such as each contract of this case, as they are originally engaged in the transaction of monetary derivatives, so it is natural that a bank will incur business cost when it uses the manpower and material resources incidental thereto, such as designing, negotiating, selling, and post management of monetary derivatives and the use of personal and material resources incidental thereto.

(5) In addition, in concluding a contract through the sale of monetary derivatives, the fact that all the expenses (including market risk management expenses, credit risk management expenses, and business expenses) incurred therefrom are recovered from the other party and that a certain profit is to be retained by the other party can be sufficiently anticipated in transaction formula. Therefore, it is unreasonable to reflect such expenses and net profit in the price of options received by the company that is the other party to the contract.

D. Sub-determination

Therefore, the plaintiffs' assertion that each of the contracts of this case is null and void in violation of the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions cannot be accepted.

4. Determination on the assertion that an unfair juristic act (Article 104 of the Civil Act) is null and void

A. Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

The Plaintiffs entered into each of the instant contracts with the Plaintiffs and the Defendant on the ground that there is a significant imbalance between the values of options that they had exchanged with each of the Plaintiffs and the Defendant, and that there is a significant difference between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant’s VaR under each of the instant contracts so that they may bear excessive risk of loss. As such, each of the instant contracts constitutes an unfair legal act as stipulated in Article 104 of the Civil Act, and thus, is null and void.

B. Review of the theoretical value and VaR (Valk) of options;

1) Each contract of this case is based on the premise that each of the contract of this case is unfair in terms of the following facts: (a) although the price of each option exchanged and acquired by the plaintiffs and the defendant is identical to that of the options, the price of the options received by the plaintiffs is not actually paid or accepted (in addition, the price of options received by the plaintiffs is included in the cost borne by the defendant in addition to the option theory; (b) the cost of the options acquired by the plaintiffs and the defendant is completed in an amount equivalent to the difference between the plaintiffs and the defendant's option theory and the net profit theory, and the fact that the contract of this case is received as the result of the net profit. The plaintiffs' conclusion is unreasonable on the ground that each of the contract of this case is unfair; (c) as well as the cost of the options acquired by the defendant was calculated unfairly in excess of the theoretical value of the options acquired by the plaintiffs, or the theory of options acquired by the defendant was calculated unreasonably in excess of the calculation method itself; and (d) the contract of this case and the conclusion of each of the contract of this case.

2) According to the following circumstances, according to Gap evidence Nos. 95 through 98, 166, 168, 169, 178, Eul evidence Nos. 24, 63, 96 through 99, 116, and 119 (including each number), each appraisal result of non-party 1 and 2, and the fact-finding results and the whole purport of the pleadings of this court against non-party 1, the following circumstances may be acknowledged.

A) Method of calculating the theoretical value of options

(1) The variables that determine the option theoretical value are comprised of (i) contractual terms such as contract amount, maturity, exercise exchange rate, and exchange rate at the time of contract, exchange rate at the time of contract, exchange rate fluctuation, won currency interest rate, and US currency interest rate at the time of contract. If contract terms are determined, such as contract amount, maturity, exercise exchange rate, and allocation rate, the option theoretical value of options can be calculated according to the multiple values such as exchange rate, currency rate difference, exchange rate fluctuation, exchange rate fluctuation, etc. at the time of contract.

(2) 통화옵션의 이론가를 산정하는 모형으로, 주식옵션의 가격 결정모형인 블랙-숄즈 모형(Black-Scholes Model)을 통화옵션가격 산정에 적합하도록 수정한 가먼-콜하겐 모형(Garman-Kohlhagen Model, GBM 모형)이 일반적으로 이용되어 왔고(이하에서 위 모형을 구분하지 않고, ‘블랙-숄즈 모형’으로 지칭한다), 피고도 이러한 모형을 기본으로 이 사건 각 계약에 따른 옵션의 이론가를 적용하였다.

블랙-숄즈 모형은 기본적으로 기초자산의 가격이 기하 브라운 운동(Geometric Brownian motion, GBM)을 따르고, 무위험이자율이 만기까지 일정하다는 가정 하에 가격을 결정하는 모형으로, 기초자산의 로그수익률(log-return)이 정규분포를 따르고, 옵션기간 동안 기초자산 가격 변동성(내재변동성, implied 주23) volatility) 이 일정하며, 옵션기간 동안 무위험이자율이 상수임을 전제로 한다.

(3) 그런데 변동성 스마일(volatility smile) 현상 주24) , 팻테일(fat tail 주25) ) 등의 문제 등으로 블랙-숄즈 모형은 실제 옵션 시장 가격을 잘 반영하지 못한다는 단점이 지적되어 왔고, 옵션가격 산정의 중요 변수인 변동성 자체가 실제로 일정하지 않다는 전제 하에 블랙-숄즈 모형(GBM 모형)을 대체하고자 하는 대안 모형들이 제시되어 왔는데, 그 중 하나가 확률변동성 모형(Stochastic Volatility model, SV 모형)으로, 그 대표적인 것이 이 사건 감정인 소외 2가 이 사건 각 계약에 따른 옵션의 이론가를 산정하기 위하여 이용한 헤스턴 모형(Heston model)이다.

그러나 이러한 확률변동성 모형은, 추정하여야 할 모수(변동성)가 하나여서 간편한 블랙-숄즈 모형과 달리 모수인 변동성을 추정하기 위하여 프로세스(process)를 가정하고 그 프로세스에 입력할 여러 개의 모수를 추정·사용하여야 하는 문제가 있고, 어느 기간의 자료를 사용하여야 하는지 논란의 소지가 있어 오히려 자의가 개입될 가능성이 있다는 등의 단점이 있다고 지적되고 있어 현재까지 일반적으로 업계에서는 블랙-숄즈 모형이 사용되고 있고, 내재변동성을 변동성 스마일 현상 등을 고려한 값을 계산하여 사용함으로써 블랙-숄즈 모형에 대하여 제기되는 문제를 해결하고 있다고 한다{피고는 은행들이 블랙-숄즈 모형을 적용하여 옵션의 이론가를 산정함에 있어 시장에서 고시되고 있는 다양한 만기의 단순 옵션의 내재변동성(변동성의 기간구조, term structure)을 각각 적용함으로써 변동성이 시간에 따라 변화한다는 점을 반영하여 블랙-숄즈 모형의 단점을 보완하고 있다고 주장하고 있다}.

(5) 한편, 미래의 변동성을 현재의 시점에서 정확하게 추정한다는 것은 불가능하고, 옵션의 이론가 산정 모델로 일반적으로 사용되어 온 블랙-숄즈 모형이나 이를 대체하고자 하는 모형 중 어느 것이 옳고 다른 것은 그르다고 단정할 수 없다는 것이 학계의 일반적인 의견이다.

B) Results of appraiser’s appraisal (the difference between the theoretical value of options under each of the instant contracts)

(1) 감정인 소외 1은 피고가 이 사건 각 계약상 옵션의 이론가 산정시 사용되었다고 블랙-숄즈 모형에 따라 이 사건 각 계약상 옵션의 이론가를 산정하였고, 감정인 소외 2는 헤스턴 모형이 블랙-숄즈 모형보다 더 적합하다는 전제 하에 헤스턴 모형에 따라 이 사건 각 계약에 따라 산출한 옵션의 이론가를 산출하였는바, 그 중 감정인 소외 1 교수가 도출한 이론가는 피고가 제시한 이론가와 별다른 차이를 보이지 않는다.

(2) The difference between the theoretical value of the options acquired by the defendant and the theoretical value of the options acquired by the plaintiffs according to each of the contracts of this case, the difference between the defendant's theoretical value based on the theoretical value applied by the plaintiffs, and the difference between the theoretical value based on each of the appraisal results by the appraiser, shall be as follows [the difference between the theoretical value of each option was received by the defendant as a magin, and such difference is composed of expenses and net profits].

본문내 포함된 표 원고 계약 순번 계약일자 각 옵션의 이론가 차이 ㉣계약금액 ㉤비율 (㉠/㉣,%) ㉥비율 (㉢/㉣,%) (마진 = 콜옵션 - 풋옵션, 달러) (콜옵션 기준, 달러)(주26) ㉠피고 ㉡감정인 소외 1 ㉢감정인 소외 2 ㉣계약금액 (풋옵션, 기준, 달러)(주27) 기도 산업 1 2007.11.2. 76,258.8 76,197.47 119,045.8 24,000,000 0.31 0.49 20,500,000 0.37 0.58 기도 스포츠 2 2007.11.8. 27,746.8 27,677.93 44,661.3 9,600,000 0.28 0.46 8,200,000 0.33 0.54 모나미 3-1 2007.8.1. 49,006.9 48,900.12 110,256.9 12,000,000 0.40 0.91 10,000,000 0.49 1.10 3-2 2008.8.10. 66,921.8 66,960.38 148,645.8 12,000,000 0.55 1.23 10,000,000 0.66 1.48 3-3 2007.8.16. 61,219.5 60,890.40 104,933.7 12,000,000 0.51 0.87 10,000,000 0.61 1.04 3-4 2007.11.21. 30,425.0 30,346.00 79,906.8 14,400,000 0.21 0.55 12,000,000 0.25 0.66 3-5 2008.1.3. 55,591.9 56,771.62 67,381.6 9,600,000 0.57 0.70 9,600,000 0.57 0.70 3-6 2008.1.11. 85,106.5 84,957.80 135,581.2 12,000,000 0.70 1.12 10,000,000 0.85 1.35 디에스엘시디 4-1 2007.6.13. 176,095.0 175,090.27 297,908.7 48,000,000 0.36 0.62 24,000,000 0.73 1.24 4-2 2007.6.13. 634,822.8 636,269.63 1,924,115.2 216,000,000 0.29 0.89 180,000,000 0.35 1.06 4-3 2007.10.25. 144,777.2 145,140.91 340,504.8 48,000,000 0.30 0.70 36,000,000 0.40 0.94 4-4 2007.11.2. 176,044.4 176,279,22 315,176.4 72,000,000 0.24 0.43 60,000,000 0.29 0.52 4-5 2007.11.8. 174,328.9 175,264.72 324,946.9 72,000,000 0.24 0.45 60,000,000 0.29 0.54 4-6 2007.11.12. 167,813.4 167,629.72 269,467.9 72,000,000 0.23 0.37 36,000,000 0.28 0.44 4-7 2008.1.7. 211,425.2 211,254.51 246,971.0 36,000,000 0.58 0.68 36,000,000 0.58 0.68 4-8 2008.1.17. 209,676.0 209,959.71 260,201.1 36,000,000 0.58 0.72 36,000,000 0.58 0.72 4-9 2008.1.22. 161,473.0 161,250.59 216,792.6 36,000,000 0.44 0.60 36,000,000 0.44 0.60

주26) ㉣계약금액 (콜옵션 기준, 달러)

주27) ㉣계약금액 (풋옵션, 기준, 달러)

C) VaR (Valisk)

(1) VaR means "the maximum amount of losses estimated by holding assets, i.e., specific assets, bonds, stocks, etc., for a certain period under certain level of trust". For example, if the pertinent period is 100 days and the level of trust is 1 billion won per day calculated by 95%, the probability that the maximum amount of losses that may arise during 100 days may exceed 1 billion won due to changes in market risk factors affecting the value of the solution may be 5%. Such VaR is limited to presenting a reasonable maximum amount of losses through statistical homes, but is based on a normal market situation.

VaR is used as reference data for risk management at an enterprise or financial institution. It is general to calculate and utilize each individual contract or product on a general level rather than on an independent basis. The reason is that many options that can be effective for offsetting among each other in the possession of each company or financial institution can be included, disregarding it, and individually seek the maximum amount of loss by each contract or product, and it is necessary to calculate it from a scenario in order to consider such offset effect.

(2) To any end, the appraiser calculated the maximum amount of loss (VaR) under each of the instant contracts itself as follows:

(A) The appraiser Non-party 1 calculated the VaR using a historical brring method using the actual exchange rate data in the past. According to the computation of 95%, 97.5%, and viaR at the level of trust at 99%, the plaintiffs' VaR value was small compared to that of the defendant, 1.5 times, 46 times, average 14 times.

(B) Based on the method of historical booping (use of data on the rate of exchange fluctuation in the period of three years, five years, and seven years), the appraiser Nonparty 2 calculated 95%, 97.5%, and 99%, respectively, at the trust level of 99%. Based on the VR value at the trust level of 99%, the plaintiffs' VaR value was calculated significantly more than that of the defendant, 1.08 times, 53.14 times, and 12.11 times on average.

C. Whether each of the contracts of this case constitutes an unfair legal act

1) If each of the contracts of this case constitutes an unfair legal act stipulated in Article 104 of the Civil Act, there should be an objective imbalance between the payment and the consideration, namely, the objective value of each option acquired by the plaintiffs and the defendant, and this should be determined at the time of conclusion of the contract. It is difficult to view that the payment of both parties under each of the contracts of this case is considerably unfair on the sole basis of the fact that the prediction of exchange fluctuation was made ex post facto and the actual transaction profit and loss was made favorable to either party.

2) However, in the case of each of the instant contracts, it is difficult to view that there exists a significant imbalance between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant’s value of options respectively acquired under each of the instant contracts solely on the following grounds that the Plaintiffs’ assertion, namely, the theoretical value of options under each of the instant contracts, and each of the fiveaR between the companies and banks under each of the instant contracts.

A) The difference between the plaintiffs and the defendant's theoretical value of options according to each of the contracts of this case exists, and the difference is reflected in the option price acquired by the plaintiffs, and the difference is in the structure that the defendant receives the difference as the margin. The defendant's acquisition consists of market risk management expenses (dynamic hedge expenses), credit risk management expenses to enterprises, expenses incurred in designing, negotiating, selling, post management, and expenses incurred in the use of human and material resources incidental thereto, and net profits acquired by the defendant. As such, it cannot be viewed that the defendant's receipt of the difference is unfair by reflecting the cost and the profit option theory.

B) Therefore, if the Defendant’s acquisition was unfairly excessive, or if the result was the same as the unduly excessive result by applying the theoretical value of options improperly calculated, there is room to deem that there exists a significant imbalance between the objective value of each option acquired by the Plaintiffs and the Defendant under each of the instant contracts. However, in light of the following circumstances, it is difficult to view that there exists a significant imbalance in the objective value of each option.

① In full view of the fact that the market risk under the currency option contract, such as the instant contract, and the credit risk are prepared to increase corresponding to the objective size of the risk capital to be received by the Defendant by each of the instant contracts, and in the case of monetary transactions such as money exchange or exchange risk insurance, and credit transactions such as loans, fees, insurance premiums, interest amounts shall be determined by a certain rate, insurance premium rate, interest rate, and interest rate compared to the contract amount. In order to determine whether the margin acquired by the Defendant is unfairly excessive, it is reasonable to determine whether it is reasonable to determine whether it is unfairly excessive.

② 한편, 옵션의 이론가를 산정하는 방식으로 감정인 소외 1이 사용한 블랙-숄즈 모형이나 감정인 소외 2가 사용한 헤스턴 모형 등 블랙-숄즈 모형의 대안으로 사용되고 있는 모형들 중 어느 것이 더 적절하다거나 부적절하다고 판단할 근거가 없고, 피고가 적용한 옵션의 이론가가 잘못 산정되었다고 볼 만한 자료도 없다(피고가 적용한 이론가는 감정인 소외 1의 감정결과와 별다른 차이가 없다). 그런데 이 사건 각 계약의 계약금액에 대비 피고가 이 사건 각 계약에 적용한 이론가의 차이로서 피고가 수취한 마진의 비율은 위 [표2]의 해당란 기재와 같이 0.21% 내지 0.70%(레버리지를 고려한 계약금액으로 콜옵션 계약금액 기준) 또는 0.25% 내지 0.85%(레버리지를 고려하지 않은 계약금액으로 풋옵션 계약금액 기준)에 지나지 않고, 감정인 소외 2의 감정결과에 따른 이론가 차액으로 비교해 보아도 이 사건 각 계약의 계약금액에 대한 비율은 0.37% 내지 1.23%(콜옵션 계약금액 기준) 또는 0.44% 내지 1.48%(풋옵션 계약금액 기준)에 지나지 아니하여 다른 금융상품 거래시 적용되는 수수료율 주29) 등 과 비교하여 볼 때 그와 같은 비율의 마진이 부당하게 과다하다고 할 수도 없다.

C) On the other hand, VR is a single data for reference to risk management at a company or financial institution, and there are various values depending on which trust level is used, and there is no established standard for using trust level (for the purpose of managing risks from a repair point of view, VaR is used as higher trust level and it is replaced by higher trust level) above all, since VaR estimates future losses using past price fluctuation information, there is a limit in using it in the context of financial crisis, etc. ② When it appears in the aspect of usefulness and utilization of VaR's foreign currency liabilities, it is reasonable to estimate the risks of foreign currency exchange traded in exchange terms (the difference between exchange rate and foreign currency exchange risks in exchange for each of the instant products or contracts), but it is reasonable to assess the difference between exchange risk and foreign currency exchange risk per se (the difference between exchange rate and foreign currency exchange risks in exchange for each of the instant products or contracts).

3) There is no other evidence to deem that there exists a significant imbalance between the plaintiffs and the defendant's objective values of options they acquired.

D. Sub-determination

Therefore, the plaintiffs' assertion that each of the contracts of this case is unfair legal acts and null and void under Article 104 of the Civil Act is not acceptable.

5. Determination as to whether the right of revocation has arisen

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

In the process of concluding each of the contracts of this case, the Defendant: ① is unable to avoid the exchange risk upon the fulfillment of the conditions for the subsequent settlement after the subsequent settlement agreement was made; the Plaintiffs were charged with new risks upon the fulfillment of the conditions for the subsequent settlement agreement of this case; but the Plaintiffs were not suitable for avoiding exchange risk; ② Around the second half of 2007, the time of the occurrence of liquidity at the global level due to the U.S. S. S. S. S.’s SbF crisis, which was around the time of the conclusion of each of the contracts of this case, there was concerns over the increase of exchange rate; (i) the Defendant had predicted the possibility of the decline of exchange rate; (ii) caused the Defendant to mislead or mislead the Plaintiffs that there was no possibility of the decline of exchange rate; and (iii) there was the theory of put options acquired by the Defendant under each of the contracts of this case, which is considerably lower than the objective value of put options acquired by the Defendant; and (iii) thus, the Plaintiffs did not receive or explain the difference amount equivalent to the fees of 10 other options.

B. Determination of fraud or mistake on the suitability for avoiding exchange risk

According to the respective statements and arguments set forth in Articles 1 through 10, 33, 35, 54, 60, 87 through 94, 101 through 157, and Eul's 10 through 17, 38 through 49, 56, 57, 64 through 68, and 92 (including various numbers) and the whole purport of arguments, the plaintiffs, upon considering the defendant's explanation from their employees at the time of the conclusion of each of the contracts of this case, have understood the basic structure and scenario of each of the contracts of this case and, at the same time, had entered into a contract to prepare for exchange losses due to the decline in exchange rate between the two parties, and had no interest in increasing exchange rate. However, in order to increase exchange rate, the plaintiffs' specific rights to exchange terms and conditions at the rate of exchange rate at the rate of exchange, which are less than those of the two parties to the contract of this case, may not be recognized as being unfavorable for the plaintiffs to the extent that they were exposed to the terms and conditions of the contract.

Therefore, even if the exchange rate falls below the exchange rate set forth in the PPP, which makes it impossible to avoid the exchange risk, or the risk increased to the plaintiffs due to the increase in exchange rate above the PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP

(c) Whether it is deceiving the prospects for future exchange rate fluctuations;

1) According to the evidence adopted earlier, most of the government, domestic and foreign financial institutions, and institutions related to each of the instant contracts are anticipated to decline foreign exchange rates at the time of entering into each of the instant contracts, and the Plaintiffs and the Defendant were anticipated to stably decline or change foreign exchange rates during the contract period on the basis of such prospects, and have determined various conditions of each of the instant contracts, and subsequently, failed to specifically anticipate that the foreign exchange rates will rapidly rise due to a sudden change in the global financial environment. Therefore, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have committed deception as to the possibility of a rise in the future exchange rates or the possibility of call options accordingly.

2) On the other hand, each of the contracts of this case provides a legal effect when the exchange rate falls beyond a certain scope on the premise of exchange rate fluctuations or when the exchange rate increases, and the value of options acquired by both parties is calculated on the basis of the probability of exchange rate fluctuations, and it is impossible to completely predict the exchange rate or its fluctuation in light of the empirical rule. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the above expectation of the plaintiffs is not completely excluded from the possibility of the rapid increase in exchange rate, but it is merely an assessment of the same possibility. As seen earlier, as long as the plaintiffs have understood the contents and structure of each of the contracts of this case, it is deemed that the plaintiffs concluded each of the contracts of this case with the intent to avoid exchange risk or obtain exchange profit within a certain scope that they are likely to bear on their own, and therefore, it is difficult to view that there was an occurrence of exchange rate fluctuations only by the plaintiffs' evaluation or judgment on exchange rate fluctuations, and eventually, it is difficult to deem that there was a motive or motive for the plaintiffs to conclude a contract of this case.

Even if there was an error in the motive for entering into a contract with the plaintiffs, the motive should be expressed to the other party in order to cancel the legal act on the ground that the mistake in the motive constitutes an error in the important part of the contents of the legal act, and it should be the interpretation of the expression of intent (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da12259, May 12, 200, etc.). Since each of the contracts in this case set the effect of exchange rate fluctuations on the premise that exchange rate fluctuations as seen earlier, the motive of the plaintiffs that would not cause a rapid increase in exchange rate is not the content of each of the contracts in this case (it cannot be denied that the outlook for exchange rate decline actually led the plaintiffs to enter into each of the contracts in this case, but as seen earlier, each of the contracts in this case also stated that there was no error in the premise that exchange rate decline as well as the change in the relation of rights and duties when a decrease in exchange rate has occurred, it cannot be deemed that both parties of the contract in this case were invalid and that there was no error.

D. Whether fraud or mistake was made with respect to the option’s premium or value

1) According to the evidence adopted earlier, although the plaintiffs' theory of options acquired by the defendant is low compared to the option theory acquired by the defendant according to each of the contracts of this case and the defendant was to receive the difference amount as a settlement (including expenses, net profits). However, the defendant's explanation at the time of conclusion of each contract of this case or each of the contracts of this case does not clearly indicate that there is any such fact or any other fact, and it is acknowledged that the defendant recommended the plaintiffs to enter into a contract with the purport that both of the contracts of this case consists of equal value of options and is goods that can avoid exchange risk without the payment of the premium.

2) However, as seen earlier, it does not mean that the theory of each option acquired by a bank and an enterprise is the same, but because each contracting party pays for options through the exchange of options, no separate realistic premium is paid or received. In other words, it does not require separate premium in order to acquire options because the customer price of options reflected above reflects the same margin. Meanwhile, the defendant can sufficiently anticipate general delivery that the contract for the business of selling financial products to customers with profit-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making-making----making-making-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In addition, where a bank designs and sells a financial product that receives certain margin or profit from its customers on the premise that it takes over risks arising from the option trading under its own responsibility, as stated in each of the instant contracts, it cannot be deemed that it has a duty to present such a margin or profit to its customers (Article 65 subparagraph 6 (e) of the Regulations on Supervision of Banking Business only stipulates that "in the case of a non-regular derivatives transaction, it shall provide each price information (referring to the information at the level of transaction prices of customers, which is not the transaction cost of the financial institution) for each inherent transaction," and Article 58 (1) of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (hereinafter "Capital Markets Act") provides that the financial investment business entity shall disclose the criteria and procedures for imposing fees and fees that it receives from investors. However, the aforementioned Act was implemented after the conclusion of each of the instant contracts, and it cannot be deemed that the bank is a party to the transaction, and thus, it constitutes expenses (including profits and losses) incurred in performing a derivatives transaction, such as each of the instant contracts.

Furthermore, it is difficult to view that, as the theoretical value of bilateral options applied by the Defendant, the terms and conditions of each of the contracts of this case, such as the contract amount, maturity, and exercise exchange rate, and the theory calculated by integrating market information at the time of conclusion of each of the contracts of this case, such as exchange rate, exchange rate fluctuation, etc., was unfairly calculated, or that the difference between the options that the Plaintiffs acquired and the options that the Defendant acquired is the difference between the options that the Defendant acquired, and that it is unreasonable to view that the margin acquired by the Defendant (including team costs

3) Therefore, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiffs caused any mistake or mistake as to the value of options, which is not subject to any economic compensation following the conclusion of each of the instant contracts, because it is difficult to view that the Plaintiffs did not bear any economic compensation following the conclusion of each of the instant contracts, and it is difficult to view that the difference between the margin and the theoretical value is related to the important part of the contract in light of the ratio or the ratio of the difference between the margin and the contractual value to the contract amount.

E. Sub-decision

Therefore, the plaintiffs' assertion that each of the contracts of this case is revoked due to fraud and mistake cannot be accepted.

6. Determination on the assertion of cancellation or termination of a contract due to changes in circumstances

A. Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

According to each contract of this case, the plaintiffs should sell US dollars continuously on a monthly basis for two to three consecutive years. This constitutes a continuous contractual relationship in which individual sales contract is continuously made under a single basic agreement.

그런데 이 사건 각 계약 체결 당시 옵션가격 산정의 중요 요소로서 블랙-숄즈 모형에서 상수(상수)로 취급된 환율의 내재변동성은 이 사건 각 계약의 기초가 되었던 객관적 사정에 해당하고, 환율이 계약기간 동안 일정한 범위 내에서 안정적으로 변동할 것이라는 점은 이 사건 각 계약의 기초가 되었던 당사자 공통의 근본적인 관념에 해당한다 할 것이다.

However, after the conclusion of each contract in this case, the exchange rate sharply rise and the inherent change in exchange rate sharply changed. The objective change in circumstances, which form the basis of this contract, occurred not only as the parties could not have predicted but also as the parties are not responsible to the parties. Accordingly, if the parties recognize the binding force of the contract in accordance with the contract in this circumstance, the plaintiffs can terminate the contract in this case in accordance with the good faith principle. Since the plaintiffs expressed their intent to terminate the contract in this case, each contract in this case was legally terminated.

B. Note 30) Judgment

1) In a case where an objective circumstance, which served as the basis of a contract, was significantly modified after the formation of the contract, and such change was caused by a cause not only the party could not have foreseen but also the parties could not have any responsibility for the parties, if the binding force of the contract is recognized, then the other party can not modify the contents of the contract in light of the good faith principle if it would be remarkably contrary to the changed circumstances, or would not have been able to expect it to either party. As an exception to the principle of contract observance, the other party may terminate the contract in the future in accordance with the good faith as an exception to the principle of contract observance. Here, the circumstance here refers to an objective circumstance, which served as the basis of the contract, and does not mean the subjective or personal circumstance of one party. In a case where the situation that did not form the basis of contract formation subsequently changes and then causes damage to one party by being unable to achieve the intended purpose of the contract at the time of the contract, barring special circumstances, maintaining its validity as it is cannot be deemed contrary to the good faith principle (see Supreme Court Decision 200

2) In the case of this case, as alleged by the plaintiffs, the fact that the inherent change in the exchange rate was a core variable in calculating the option price of each of the contracts of this case, and that such inherent change is presumed to have been calculated retroactively from the market price of options, as seen earlier. According to the evidence and the overall purport of the pleadings adopted earlier, following the conclusion of each of the contracts of this case, the exchange rate has rapidly increased and its inherent change has also increased rapidly due to the change in domestic and foreign economic and financial environment arising from the international financial crisis caused by the so-called non-friendly housing mortgage loan in the United States following the conclusion of each of the contracts of this case. Such circumstance was not easy for the parties to anticipate it specifically. If binding force of each of the contracts of this case is acknowledged as stipulated in each of the contracts of this case, if the exchange rate has not decreased in the future, it is recognized that the Plaintiffs were to sell foreign currency at the exchange rate lower than the market price for the performance of the obligation to sell foreign currency options during the remaining contract period, and thus, it is recognized that the Plaintiffs did not exercise the economic option.

3) However, in light of the following circumstances, the plaintiffs' assertion that the above circumstance alone can exclude the binding force of each of the contracts of this case since the termination right or the contract modification right is in accordance with the good faith principle.

① As seen earlier, each of the instant contracts provides for both parties’ rights and obligations pursuant to exchange rate fluctuations. Examining the structure or content of each of the instant contracts, including the nature of exchange rate and the fact that foreign exchange transactions are inevitable exporters, the Plaintiffs are already premised on each of the instant contracts. The Plaintiffs and the Defendant took over the risks of exchange rate fluctuations depending on their respective directions different from their respective expectations, and cannot be deemed to have maintained within a certain scope of exchange rate.

Therefore, it is not reasonable to deny the validity of the contract on the ground that the risk of the exchange rate to be borne by the plaintiffs was realized by changing the exchange rate to the direction and width different from that of the plaintiffs.

② The inherent change in the exchange rate is, in its concept, linked to the fluctuation in the market price of options. The market price of options is determined by various factors such as exchange rate, option price, telephone interest rate, and the remaining maturity of options in addition to the inherent change. In light of the correlation with such option price, time fluctuation is inevitable. Therefore, the possibility of inherent change in reality itself and the possibility of inherent change in the option price in each contract of this case should be deemed as already premised in the design process of each contract of this case like exchange rate fluctuation. In addition, even if the options were used in the official form for calculating the option price, it is difficult to view that there was no inherent change in the contract at the time of the contract and the future contract period, or that it was entirely premised on a change in the price within a certain scope (i.e., currency option products, as well as all the currency option products, it is difficult to view that there was any change in the circumstances after all of the parties to the contract after the rapid change in the price of options products.)

Therefore, it cannot be viewed as an objective circumstance that is the basis of each contract of this case in that the inherent change is specified or maintained within a certain scope.

③ Even in cases where the Defendant becomes liable for sale of foreign currency by exercising a call option pursuant to each of the instant contracts, the Plaintiffs, as an exporter company, hold foreign currency payment. As such, the Plaintiffs are able to perform the obligation to sell foreign currency upon the Defendant’s exercise of the call option by selling foreign currency. However, the essence of the act to avoid exchange risk, i.e., the act to avoid exchange risk, e., the exchange rate to be applied to the future hedging, regardless of the actual exchange rate fluctuation, is to fix it at a certain exchange rate. As such, in the event of the increase of exchange rate, foreign currency is to sell foreign currency at an exchange rate lower than the market exchange rate (including profits, etc. that can be compensated by the increase of exchange rate based on the increase of the raw materials import price) and thus, the Plaintiffs should bear economic losses as compensation for avoiding exchange risk, and even if so, the Plaintiffs’ act to avoid exchange risk, other than each of the instant contracts, should be deemed to have fulfilled the duty to avoid exchange risk in the direction of the actual exchange risk.

④ However, in the event that the foreign currency supply and demand forecast itself becomes rainwater as a result, due to the conclusion of a contract at an amount exceeding the appropriate scope, taking into account the foreign currency amount to be held by the Plaintiffs in comparison with the foreign currency amount, or the decrease of export performance after the contract, the actual loss is likely to occur, beyond the loss of expected profit arising from the increase in exchange rate, and the Defendant is to procure and sell the foreign currency in kind at the market exchange rate exceeding the foreign currency owned by the Plaintiffs. However, the currency option contract, such as each contract, can be used for exchange hedging purposes, but if it was concluded for the purpose of exchange hedging without any underlying asset, the risk is likely to occur. Thus, maintaining the validity of each contract of this case on the ground that actual loss occurred to the Plaintiffs and maintaining the effect of each contract of this case cannot be said to go against the good faith principle (in the case of the Plaintiff and the United States, each contract of this case, including the Plaintiff, and several financial institutions, where the contract amount was held in excess of the amount held in excess of the contract amount. However, the Defendant’s economic risk are not notified.

⑤ Each of the instant contracts is identical to the overall value of options acquired by the Plaintiffs and the total value of options acquired by the Defendant during the entire contract period, and is in line with the balance of options subject to transactions under the premise that the contractual relationship continues to exist normally throughout the entire contract period. Therefore, if the contract period is in progress so that the Plaintiffs can recognize the right to terminate the contract and terminate the validity of the contract to the future, the contract, etc., which is designed to equal the total value of options during the entire contract period, will be avoided.

(6) In addition, as seen earlier, the Defendant committed an act of avoiding risks, such as counter-transaction, after concluding each of the contracts in this case with the Plaintiffs, and thus, if termination or amendment of each of the contracts in this case is recognized, the Defendant is not entitled to exercise the rights against the Plaintiffs under each of the contracts in this case. On the other hand, the Defendant is obliged to bear all economic effects arising in the direction opposite to each of the contracts in this case according to the act of avoiding risks due to performance of obligations arising from counter-transaction. Even if the Plaintiffs actually suffered economic losses by maintaining the validity of each of the contracts in this case, the amount of economic losses incurred to the Defendant by terminating or amending each of the contracts in this case is reasonable, and thus, the binding force of each of the contracts in this case

C. Sub-decision

Therefore, the plaintiffs' assertion of cancellation due to changes in circumstances is without merit.

7. Violation of obligation to protect customers;

A. Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

The defendant is liable for damages caused by breach of the duty of customer protection in entering into each of the contracts of this case as follows.

1) ① It is revealed that the company’s VaR measurement result of the currency option product, such as each of the instant contracts, is more likely to have no exchange hedging effect than VR when the company did not conclude the contract. ② When the exchange rate falls below the lower exchange rate, each of the instant contracts is likely to cause an increased risk due to the exchange rate, instead of loss of exchange hedging function, to the Plaintiffs. Furthermore, when the exchange rate falls below the upper exchange rate, each of the instant contracts is likely to cause an increased risk due to the recreation condition, etc. to the Plaintiffs. Furthermore, it is narrow that the allocation is narrow, the contract period is limited, divided into A/B wave, or A/B/C wave, and the contract period is divided into two times more than put option, and the company did not recognize put options to the company, and thus, it is unfair that the Plaintiffs did not obtain from each of the instant companies at an early rate of exchange hedging, etc.

2) In addition, the Defendant recommended the conclusion of each of the instant contracts by emphasizing the opportunity for high profit when there is a decent exchange rate outlook. ② In the event of a rapid increase in the exchange rate, the Plaintiffs may incur unlimited loss due to the structure of each of the instant contracts, and the contract is long-term, the Plaintiffs did not provide specific and sufficient explanation as to the fact that the conditions of the instant contract are met, the possibility of expanding the Plaintiffs’ damage is high due to the fulfillment of the conditions. ③ The Defendant did not indicate that it received a large amount of fees equivalent to the difference in the option value due to each of the instant contracts, and ④ furthermore, even when the exchange rate increase during the contract period, the Defendant did not inform the specific loss reduction scheme itself under the exchange rate outlook.

(b) Customer protection duty in the currency option contract;

1) A currency option contract traded in an over-the-counter derivatives market is a new form of contract developed by high-tech financial engineering utilizing various information and expertise, such as transaction principles in the foreign exchange market, the prospect of exchange rate and the evaluation of option value. It can function not only as a financial product but also as a financial product for investment or speculation.

On the other hand, it is not easy for a non-financial company to accurately understand the complicated contents, structure, risk, etc. of a contract. Therefore, in order to make reasonable decisions and make decisions under its own responsibility, it is necessary to receive transaction information from a financial institution that sells financial products as an expert.

Therefore, in selling monetary options products under the good faith principle, a bank, a financial expert, is obligated not to actively recommend transactions involving excessive risk, taking into account all the circumstances such as transaction purpose, transaction experience, degree of risk preference, property status, etc. of a transaction counterpart company (hereinafter “conformity principle”), and is obliged to clearly explain the characteristics of the products, major contents, and risks associated with the transaction to the company by clearly explaining the characteristics of the products and the risks associated with the transaction to the company, taking into account the characteristics of the products, the risk level, corporate experience and ability, etc.

2) However, the argument that the defendant violated the duty of explanation on the premise that the defendant, among the plaintiffs' claims, was separately obligated to explain the so-called "the so-called "the most malicious situation" to the defendant, did not explain to the extent of specific loss that may arise to the plaintiffs in the case of the most bad faith. The defendant's explanation of the structure and content of each of the contracts of this case, and if the plaintiffs sufficiently understand such contents, it is possible for the plaintiffs to easily anticipate what result may arise in the case of the most bad faith, it is not necessary to separately explain the situation other than the above duty of explanation.

3) In addition, the argument that the Defendant violated the suitability principle or duty to explain because it did not inform the specific reduction scheme itself under the proposed exchange rate fluctuation forecast even when the rate of exchange increases during the contract period. As seen earlier, the above argument cannot be accepted.

C. Whether the avoidance of exchange risk of each of the contracts of this case is inappropriate

We examine the argument that each of the instant contracts itself is inappropriate or unfair for avoiding exchange risk.

1) First, the Plaintiffs asserted that the structure of each of the instant contracts itself is inappropriate for exchange hedging, but each of the instant contracts was designed to be identical for both parties’ acceptance of risks as part of the goods subject to exchange risk avoidance having the same structure as seen earlier. As such, there are parts that make it impossible to achieve the purpose of exchange hedging as a result of exchange rate fluctuations and contract duration, it is difficult to view that such structure of each of the instant contracts itself is in essence inappropriate for avoiding exchange risk.

2) Furthermore, as to the assertion that the difference between the theory of options under each contract of this case is inappropriate or unfair as it is the goods that have concealed fees even though the fees are actually imposed, the plaintiffs' assertion cannot be accepted on the ground that the defendant received the difference as the cost and net profit by reflecting the difference in the price of options, and it cannot be viewed as inappropriate for the exchange hedging.

3) As to whether each of the contracts of this case can be deemed inappropriate for exchange hedging on the grounds that there is no customer protection device to prevent the risk of customers, such as a early termination device, etc., at the exchange rate set up in Bloroub Knock-out, and the exchange rate set up in Bloroub-out, which is a balance sheet, the balance sheet, and the balance sheet. The object of avoiding exchange risk of an exporting company, including the plaintiffs, is dangerous due to exchange rate decline. The object of avoiding exchange risk is the risk of exchange rate decline. In addition to other terms and conditions that restrict the Plaintiff’s losses to a certain extent in preparation for the possibility of a significant increase in exchange rate due to the opposite direction, the value of call options lowers the value of the call option, and accordingly, it is impossible to achieve the purpose of avoiding exchange risk in preparation for exchange rate. Accordingly, the contract of this case cannot be concluded to be inappropriate for each of the contracts of this case.

4) In light of the concept, function, and utilization of VaR as seen earlier, it is inappropriate to determine the amount of risk exposure or maximum expected loss by comparing VaR, which is measured without considering the underlying assets of each individual company, as seen earlier. As such, even if the VaR increases after concluding the currency option contract, it cannot be deemed that the relevant currency option contract does not have the effect of foreign exchange hedging in essence or is inappropriate for foreign exchange hedging.

5) Ultimately, without considering the Plaintiffs’ transaction purpose, exchange rate outlook, risk preference, transaction experience, property status, etc., it cannot be readily concluded that each of the contracts in this case is inappropriate for exchange hedging or that each of the contracts in this case itself violated the suitability principle by itself, and the Plaintiffs’ assertion against this cannot be accepted.

D. Whether the Defendant’s obligation to protect customers in relation to the Plaintiff’s flag industry and sport sports violates the Defendant’s obligation to protect customers

1) Facts of recognition

A) Since its establishment, the Plaintiff’s machine industry manufactures and exports special functional clothes and healthcare wild boars. Since its establishment, 40% of the special functional clothes market has market share of 40%, 100% of the sale has been exported, and 10% of the total export amount is made in the United States, France, China, Indonesia, and Vietnam for the manufacture and sale of the product. The export amount in 2007, which entered into the instant contract (the first contract of November 2, 2007) has reached USD 9,2510,000,000,000 for export amount in 2008,000,000,000 for export amount from January 7, 2009, and the total export amount from January 7, 2009 to December 24, 200,000,0000 won under the instant contract of this case (the first contract) contract of this case, a two-year contract period.

B) The Plaintiff’s air sports was established by dividing the part of the Plaintiff’s healthcare business into human resources. The location, the representative director, the same company as the Plaintiff’s air industry, and the employees of the Plaintiff’s air industry, and the employees of the Plaintiff’s air sports have been processed without distinguishing the Plaintiff’s business. The Plaintiff’s air sports in 2007 export amounting to USD 1,526,00,000,000,000, the export amount of the year 2008, the export amount of USD 35,5050,000,000,0000 and the export amount of January 7, 2009 to USD 1,333,00,000.

C) From 2004 to 2007 prior to the conclusion of the instant contract in preparation for exchange rate decline, Plaintiff Weather industry has continued to engage in monetary forward transactions with Korea Exchange Bank. The Plaintiff has concluded a gift exchange contract (NE purchase and USD sale) on the first order of the 18-month period between September 3, 2007 and July 2008, on March 6, 2007, prior to the conclusion of the instant contract (i.e., contract No. 1, Nov. 2, 2007); and (ii) on August 20, 2007, each due date of August 30, 2007 was set at the first order of the 18-month period between September 3, 2007 and July 2008.

D) In addition, in 2005, the Plaintiff’s weather industry has been engaged in transactions with the new bank under the conditions as shown in [Attachment 3] below the products, which are the kind of modified gift exchange (two times) conditions, between the new bank and the new bank.

In 6 months (00,000/2,000,000,000 from March 15, 2005, 6 months (05.2.-2.05.7.) 1, 1,000/2,000 from the due date of the table contract contract ($, monthly standard) 1,00,000,00 for the new bank Targ Form on February 2, 2005, 6 months from the first date of the six months (1,00,000/2,000,000 from August to 06.1.) 3, 2002 from the first date of the new bank Targ Form on March 15, 2005 (12 months from April to 06.3.05) 5,000/1,0000.

E) Negotiations for the conclusion of the instant contract between the Plaintiff’s flag industry and the Defendant were conducted at the same time without distinction (Therefore, unless it is separately classified as to the process of negotiations as indicated below, the Plaintiff’s flag industry and the Plaintiff’s flag industry is not classified, and as to the process of negotiations as indicated below, the Plaintiff’s flag industry is not classified.

On February 7, 2007, the defendant visited the Plaintiff's flag industry for the first time, sent a transaction proposal concerning "Windowed K.I END" and "WD" goods (one year of each contract term), and explained it on August 2, 2007. On August 2, 2007, the defendant visited the side of the Plaintiff's flag industry and explained it to "Windowed K.I EFD goods (1 year)" (one year) and "Window KIK Trabo + Anyy Cirll goods (2 years), and entered into various contracts with various types of telephone options such as this case's telephone products (2 years) and explain it through various types of telephone options prior to the introduction, 207, August 6, 2007, 207, 107, 107.7.17.

Each of the above transaction proposals clearly describe the maturity scenarios according to exchange rate fluctuations for each product, and include the chapters and disadvantages of each product. However, the two times the contract price should be sold at the agreed exchange rate when the conditions for the resale agreement are fulfilled, and the options should be extinguished at the time of the fulfillment of the conditions for the resale agreement, and the structure of the product has been emphasized in red color.

F) As seen earlier, the Plaintiff weather industry has made monetary forward transactions, etc. in preparation for the decline in exchange rates. Around 2006, currency forward transactions entered into at the time of the swap point in the swap (-) have been at a level lower than the spot exchange rate, and even if monetary forward transactions were to be made, the currency forward transactions had no choice but to cover exchange loss. On August 2007, 2007, the swap point was much lower than that in 2006, -12 won to -16 won, which led to more attention to the goods that can be converted into exchange at a higher exchange rate than the currency forward transactions. At that time, the negotiations were made mainly based on the Plaintiff’s experience in the exchange rate between the employees of the Plaintiff weather business and the Defendant’s employees Nonparty 5 and Nonparty 6, Nonparty 5, and Nonparty 5 of the Plaintiff weather industry.

G) Meanwhile, at the time of sending the transaction proposal to the above non-party 5 on August 6, 2007, the defendant explained the specific amount of losses that may arise according to the exchange rate fluctuation by each product, along with the data explaining the number of losses that may arise according to the exchange rate. On the other hand, when entering the maturity exchange rate, the accelerator program file was also sent to the non-party 5, which can calculate the specific amount of losses and losses. Based on this, the non-party 5 understood the structure and contents of the product proposed by the defendant, such as making a proposal to voluntarily revise the transaction proposal. Based on such understanding, the contract amount, event exchange rate, the upper part, the lower part of the exchange rate, the subsequent part of the exchange rate, and the period of the contract were determined to conclude the contract by confirming the real-time exchange rate. The plaintiff's previous industry was mainly interested in enhancing the exchange rate outlook that the exchange rate will decline in the process.

H) Prior to the conclusion of the instant contract, Plaintiff Weather Industries and Gam-sports submitted to the Defendant the Plaintiff a statement of the export performance in 2007, Plaintiff Weather Industries, Plaintiff Weather Industry, and Plaintiff Weather Sports’s quarterly financial statements, business status, etc. According to Plaintiff Weather Industries’s “the export performance in 2007”, the amount of Plaintiff Weather Industries’s 2007 export amount to USD 9,2510,000,000,000. According to each of the above financial statements, the sales amount in 2006 of Plaintiff Weather Industries was KRW 1,04.9 billion, and the sales amount until March of 2007 was KRW 7 billion,000,000,000,0000, and the sales amount until March of 2007 of Plaintiff Weather Sports was KRW 10.8 billion, in each of the above business status, the status of Plaintiff Weather Industries and Gam-sports’s business operation status, etc.

I) Meanwhile, at the time of the conclusion of the instant contract, Plaintiff Weather Industry and Gam-sports affixed a seal on the risk notice issued by the Defendant. The said risk notice states that “In the event that an over-the-counter derivatives contract is concluded for the purpose of hedging, the goods concerned may not be fully covered, and this transaction may not be accurately inconsistent with the exposed risk of the customer, and may partially hedge or be over-hedging out of the entire area through this transaction.”

(j) The written confirmation of the transaction in English and national language issued after the conclusion of the instant contract is specifically indicated in the scenarios by foreign exchange rate at each maturity.

[Ground of recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap 1 through 3, 100 through 126, 146 through 161, Eul 10 through 13, 32 through 40, 100 through 113 (including each number), the witness non-party 6 and 5's testimony, and the result of this court's order to submit financial transaction information to the Korea Exchange Bank, the purport of the whole pleadings

2) Whether the obligation to protect customers is violated

According to the evidence adopted earlier, the possibility that the exchange rate may rapidly rise in the process of concluding the instant contract between the Plaintiff’s Weather Industry and the Aeronautical Sport was almost not taken into account. In such a case, if the exchange rate rise, the Defendant presented, pursuant to the instant contract, the prospects and possibility of a decline in exchange rates mainly without emphasizing the Plaintiff’s duty to bear the Plaintiff’s technical industry, the risks, risks, and the degree thereof, and the possibility of a stable change. It is recognized that the instant contract was called as a Rocom for the instant contract, and that the Defendant did not clearly notify the fact that the options price consisting of costs and profits.

However, in light of the aforementioned circumstances and the above facts, ① most of the sales revenue of the Plaintiff 2 was considerably affected by the export rate of 00,000, and, in the case of the Plaintiff 2, it mainly concluded monetary forward transactions to avoid exchange risk prior to the conclusion of the instant contract. However, the Defendant offered various forms of contracts to the Plaintiff 2 prior to the conclusion of the instant contract and explained the terms and conditions of each contract and the profits and losses to the Plaintiff 1000,000,000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000.

E. Whether the Plaintiff’s mother violated the duty of protecting customers

1) Facts of recognition

A) As of December 31, 2008, the Plaintiff’s mother and America established and operated a local corporation with the market share of 1,94.8 billion won in Korea (26.88%) in the industries, such as manufacturing, selling, etc. of Seodaemun-gu, and with the market share of 19.8 billion won in the United States, China, and Thailand. Of approximately 169.7 billion won in the annual sales of 2005, approximately 21.2.1.2,1.7 billion won in the annual sales of 2006, USD 2.8.3 billion in the average of 3.7 billion in the annual sales of 2007, USD 1,91.8 billion in the annual sales of 207, USD 18.3 billion in the annual average of 3.7 billion in the 2005, USD 9.3 billion in the 2005, USD 208.3 billion in the 206.8 billion exports in the case of 28.

B) After having experienced foreign exchange loss at the time of the IMF, the Plaintiff’s mother and United States established exchange risk management rules for the prevention of exchange risk from 2001, and operated the exchange risk management team separately (part of the employees received exchange risk-related training).

C) From 2004 to 2007, the Plaintiff’s mother and America experienced foreign currency conversion loss due to exchange rate decline, and was anticipated to gradually decline in the exchange rate in 2008. The Plaintiff’s mother and America concluded 15 currency option contracts, such as the Defendant, our bank, HSBC bank, etc. before entering into the instant contract (Articles 3-1 through 3-6). In addition, the Plaintiff’s mother and America entered into the instant contract into 15 currency option contracts with another four banks, such as foreign exchange banks, e.g., t., e., t., t., 8.1 million US dollars (based on call option). As such, the Plaintiff’s mother and America entered into the instant contract with the Defendant, including the instant contract, on May 8, 2006 to January 22, 2008 (based on 207 US currency option) and entered into the instant contract with the Defendant’s e.g., the instant currency option contract into several contracts with the Plaintiff 27.

However, at the time of concluding the instant contract, the Plaintiff’s mother did not inform the Defendant of the fact that the currency option contract was concluded with another bank (the Plaintiff’s mother was written in the audit report on the financial statements in 2007, and thus, the Defendant was aware or could have been aware of such fact. However, the audit report was prepared on March 2008, which was after the conclusion of the instant contract, and was submitted to the Defendant as credit review data around April 2008. Thus, at the time of concluding the instant contract, the Defendant was not able to confirm the fact that the instant contract was concluded with another bank through the audit report in 2006. Meanwhile, the audit report on the financial statements in 2006 by the Plaintiff’s mother and the Plaintiff’s mother did not contain any details on the conclusion of the

본문내 포함된 표 순번 계약일 은행 상품명 계약기간 계약 금액 손익 비고 (월) (달러,월) (원) (레버리지, KO 등) 1 06. 5. 8. 피고 Windowed KIKO Turbo Participating FWD with Rebate 12 25만 9,075,000 L:2배/KO 2회 2 06. 5. 16. 피고 Windowed KIKO Turbo Participating FWD with Rebate 12 25만 28,750,000 L:2배/KO 5회 3 06. 8. 3. 피고 Windowed KIKO Turbo Participating FWD with Rebate 12 25만 58,125,000 L:2배/KO 11회 4 07. 1. 5. 피고 Windowed KIKO Turbo Participating FWD with Rebate 12 25만 21,925,000 L:2배/KO 1회 5 07. 1. 18. 우리은행 (KIKO) 12 25만 L:2배 6 07. 2. 13. 피고 Win. KO Bonus Part. FWD w/ Rebate + Anytime KO At-Expiry KI Part. FWD w/Rebate 24 25만 (B파트 : 50만) 58,250,000 L:2배/KO 1회 7 07. 3. 5. 우리은행 (KIKO) 25만 L:2배 8 07. 4. 18. HSBC (KIKO) 12 50만 L:2배 9 07. 4. 30. 피고 Win. KO Bonus Part. FWD + Anytime KO At-Expiry KI Call Sell 24 25만 (B파트 : 50만) 17,250,000 L:2배/KO 1회 10 07. 5. 17. 피고 Windowed KI Enhanced Participating Forward + Anytime KO At-Expiry KI Call Sell 24 30만 (B파트 : 60만) 7,230,000 L:2배/KI 1회 11 07. 5. 18. 피고 Windowed KI Enhanced Participating Forward + Anytime KO At-Expiry KI Call Sell 36 30만 (B파트 : 60만) 18,750,000 L:2배/ 12 07. 5. 18. 우리은행 50만 L:2배 13 07. 8. 1. 피고 Windowed KIKO Turbo Participating Forward + Anytime KO At-Expiry KI Call Sell 24 25만 (B파트 : 50만) 8,853,750 L:2배/ 14 07. 8. 10. 피고 Windowed KIKO Turbo Participating Forward + Anytime KO At-Expiry KI Call Sell 24 25만(B파트 : 50만) 11,315,000 L:2배 15 07. 8. 16. 피고 Windowed KIKO Turbo Participating Forward + Anytime KO At-Expiry KI Call Sell 24 25만 (B파트 : 50만) 14,020,000 L:2배 16 07. 8. 24. 씨티은행 (KIKO) 12 20만 L:2배 17 07. 10. 30. 우리은행 (Redemption) 24 50만 L:2배 18 07. 11. 13. 씨티은행 (KIKO) 12 40만 L:2배 19 07. 11. 15. 외환은행 (KIKO) 12 30만 L:2배 20 07. 11. 21. 피고 Windowed KIKO Turbo Participating Forward + Anytime KO At-Expiry KI Call Sell 24 30만 (B파트 : 60만) L:2배 21 07. 12. 17. 외환은행 (KIKO) 12 30만 L:2배 22 07. 12. 18. 우리은행 (KIKO) 12 50만 L:2배 23 08. 1. 3. 피고 Put Spread + Anytime KO Call Sell 20 30만 (B파트 : 60만) L:2배 24 08. 1. 7. HSBC (KIKO) 12 60만 L:2배 25 08. 1. 9. 씨티은행 (KIKO) L:2배 26 08. 1. 11. 피고 Windowed KIKO Turbo Participating Forward + Anytime KO At-Expiry KI Call Sell 21 25만 (B파트 : 50만) L:2배 27 08. 1. 22. 우리은행 (KIKO) 12 100만 L:2배

D) In another currency option contract which was concluded prior to the conclusion of the instant contract, the Plaintiff Mona concluded prior to the conclusion of the instant contract, the parties experienced losses by selling the amount corresponding to the mileage upon the fulfillment of the conditions under the instant contract on August 17, 2007 and the instant contract on August 1, 2007. Meanwhile, as of the end of 2007, the contract amount to be sold by the Plaintiff Mona was based on the currency option contract as indicated in the said [Attachment 4] as of the end of 2007, based on USD 950,000 per month.

E) On January 11, 2006, the Defendant entered into a foreign exchange option trading agreement and monetary option trading agreement with the Plaintiff’s mother and United States, and around February 2006, after visiting the Plaintiff’s mother and United States to provide an overall explanation on the currency option trading agreement with which the exchange rate can be high, on May 8, 2006, the Defendant presented a variety of instruments for transaction with the Plaintiff’s mother and United States on several occasions during a period of four months until the signing of the first currency option contract, and explained the structure of each product through telephone, e-mail, etc., and explained the specific amount of losses and profits arising from exchange rate fluctuations. In addition, at the time of entering into the instant contract, the Defendant provided the Plaintiff’s mother and United States with data on exchange rate prospects for most domestic and foreign financial institutions, etc., and presented a forecast on exchange rate at any time based on the forecast of exchange rate between the government and domestic and foreign institutions.

F) The employee non-party 3 (the chief of the police team) of the Plaintiff mother-Sa was mainly in charge of concluding and negotiating the currency option contract with the Defendant. Based on the understanding on the structure and content of various currency options products proposed by the Defendant, Nonparty 3 voluntarily presented major terms and conditions of the contract, such as the contract amount, the last half-year, the last half-year, and the last half-year, the judicial branch, and the branch of the exchange rate trend, and requested the conclusion of the contract according to the rapid increase in the exchange rate.

G) Meanwhile, the Defendant received data such as business status, audit report, etc. from the Plaintiff’s mother and the Plaintiff’s mother each year as credit review data. The data submitted at the time of the conclusion of the instant contract include 168,526,335,457 won (amount of export), 191,145,35,457 won (amount of 5,60,619,412), 198,811,45,23 won (amount of 5,824,64,188), 209 (amount of export), 201,44,436, 137 won (amount of 6,081,619,412), 207, 198,811,45, 205, 223 won (amount of 5,824,64,188 won).

H) At the time of concluding the 3-5 contract on January 3, 2008, the Defendant recommended the Plaintiff’s mother and the United States to lower the contract amount by taking into account the existing contract amount, or adjusted the effective time of the contract taking into account the maturity and settlement amount of the existing contract. Before entering into the contract on January 11, 2008, the Defendant demanded materials on the current status of foreign currency inflow in 2007 and confirmed the current status of foreign currency inflow by receiving materials on foreign trade (including export of products and relay trade) from the Plaintiff. According to the above materials, the sales amount in 2007 was 18.8 billion won, and there is no difference between the estimated export amount in 2007 that was first submitted.

I) Meanwhile, the Defendant’s trade proposal on various kinds of monetary options products presented to the Plaintiff’s mother from February 2007 to the Plaintiff’s mother. Among them, the transaction proposal offered on April 20, 2006 before the Plaintiff’s mother and the Defendant entered into the first currency option contract is the introduction of “Wined KO’s Regulatory Form” goods. The “this product is suitable for a customer who considers that the exchange rate does not go beyond the upper and lower exchange rate during the observation period to sell USD 2,000.” Under the title of “risk and compensation analysis”, if the market exchange rate falls below the lower exchange rate at the bottom of the lower exchange rate, the option is extinguished during the pertinent period, and the exchange rate should not be sold at a lower rate than $2,00,000, but should not be sold at a lower rate than $2,000.

[Ground of recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap's statements in Gap's 4, 5, 54, 59, 60, 62 through 68, 60, 62 through 68, 80, Eul's 14 through 18, 27, 50, 53, 54, 56, 58, 65, 67, 93 through 95 (including each number), witness non-party 3 and 4's testimony, whole purport of pleading

2) Whether the Defendant violated the obligation to protect the customer

The following circumstances revealed in the facts and the above facts. ① the Defendant presented various forms of contracts to the Plaintiff mother or the United States prior to the conclusion of the instant contract, and explained the terms and conditions of each contract, the structure of profits and losses, and the risks associated with the contract, and also stated the transaction proposal presented and delivered upon the transaction confirmation or the contract. ② The Plaintiff mother or the United States concluded a contract with five banks including the Defendant on 27 occasions. Accordingly, the Plaintiff and the United States actively understood the structure and risks of the instant contract by experiencing the termination of the contract due to the fulfillment of the contract conditions during the instant period, the two times due to the fulfillment of the contract conditions during the instant period, and the two times due to the fulfillment of the contract conditions during the instant period. However, in light of the Plaintiff’s ability to explain and make a contract during the instant period, it appears that the contract was concluded by the Defendant, including the Plaintiff’s mother or the United States, to have been actively aware of the risks of selling the contract amount due to the signing of the contract during the instant period of exchange risk and other factors.

F. Whether the Plaintiff violated the obligation to protect the customer against the Plaintiff SELD

1) Facts of recognition

A) Plaintiff D.S. V.D. produces and sells Bak Lni UNit (TFT-L CD) and LED lighting, etc. The total assets amounting to KRW 1,87.7 billion, sales amounting to KRW 5,78.1 billion, total assets amounting to KRW 1,88.6 billion, total assets amounting to KRW 61.6 billion, total assets amounting to KRW 2,32.9 billion, and sales amount in KRW 850 billion, and total assets amounting to KRW 2,32.9 billion, total assets amounting to KRW 2008,000, and KRW 850.8 billion. The total assets amounting to KRW 5,781 billion in total sales amount in KRW 206.5 billion in total sales amount in KRW 5,5781 billion in total sales amount in KRW 200,000 in average sales amount, USD 205.75 billion in total sales amount in 2005.5 billion in total sales amount

B) The Plaintiff LSELD: (a) frequently identified the situation of the exchange rate; (b) while analyzing the profit and loss arising from the exchange rate; (c) performed the exchange risk management while analyzing the profit and loss arising from the exchange rate; (d) entered into a exchange insurance contract with the general gift exchange method from May 13, 2006 to January 22, 2007 each month before the conclusion of the instant contract (the instant contract, No. 4-1 contract, June 13, 2007 or January 22, 2008); (c) the said contract amount (insurance amount) reached USD 20 million to USD 27 million each month; (d) the guaranteed exchange rate stipulated in the said exchange fluctuation insurance contract was lower than the exchange rate for the reason that the swap point was at the same time for the reason that it was Map (-).

C) At the time of the conclusion of the 4-7 contract dated January 7, 2008 by Plaintiff Eseldi, the Plaintiff had previously experienced the obligation to sell twice as a result of the fulfillment of the conditions set forth in the 4-5 contract dated November 8, 2007.

D) On March 9, 2007, the Defendant first sent a transaction proposal to Plaintiff DISD, and introduced two currency option products (one year on which Wlodow KO (1 year), Wloced Kloc-Indic Pipine Form (1 year). On April 17, 2007 and May 29, 2007, the Defendant visited Plaintiff DISDD on the first day, and entered various types of currency option products in the form of sending the transaction proposal to Plaintiff DISD on May 9 and May 29, 2007, and entered various types of currency options products in the form of “the 200,000,000,0000,000,00000,0000,0000,0000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000.

E) Negotiations, product description, etc. for the conclusion of a contract were mainly conducted between the Nonparty 7 and the Defendant’s employee Nonparty 8. The said Plaintiff’s employee prepared a written summary of the basic structure of the five goods to obtain approval from the said Defendant’s employee based on the understanding of the content of the transaction proposal, etc., and received confirmation from the said Defendant’s employee.

[Ground of recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence 6 through 10, Eul evidence 19, 20, 21, 23, 35, 44 through 49, 81 through 93 (including various numbers), witness non-party 7 and 8, each testimony of the Korea Export Insurance Corporation, the result of an order issued by this court to submit financial transaction information to the Korea Export Insurance Corporation, the purport of the whole pleadings

2) Whether the Defendant violated the obligation to protect the customer

In light of the above facts and the aforementioned facts, it was difficult to find out the following specific prospects: (a) Plaintiff E.S.D. also understood such structure and characteristics as well as the experience of exchange option insurance contracts for several years prior to the conclusion of the instant contract by the Defendant, as well as through various kinds of monetary options proposals or the Defendant’s explanation; (b) Plaintiff E.S.D. was exported most of its sales; and (c) Plaintiff E.S. was an employee for exchange risk management at any time, and was in charge of exchange risk management while checking the situation of exchange fluctuation; (c) it was difficult to find out that there was an anticipated decline in exchange rates at the time of entering into the instant contract at the time of entering into the instant contract at the time of entering into the instant contract at the time of entering into the instant contract at the time of entering into the instant contract at the time of entry into the instant contract at the time of entry into, or at the time of the subsequent increase in exchange rates. In light of the above facts, it was difficult to find that there was no other evidence showing that Plaintiff D.D.’s monthly import risk or sales risk were not entered into the instant contract at 0000.

8. Determination on the assertion of violation of the duty of ex post customer protection

A. The assertion

In addition to the obligations stipulated in each of the instant contracts, the Plaintiffs assume the duty of ex post facto customer protection to encourage the Defendant to seriously induce adequate measures not to expand the customer’s loss in the event of actual occurrence of the potential risk in the contract. ① Liquidation measures by lump sum settlement demand large amount of settlement exceeding the financial level and risk reduction ability of the company. ② Re-rescueing measures in that the risk of the contract intentionally expands the risk of exchange rate by means of a kind of water saving method by intentionally expanding the risk of the contract at a substantial level, and causes excessive loss when the exchange rate increase, ③ the call frame purchase measures can reduce the loss between different exchange rates by selling and purchasing the call options at the same time, and thus, it cannot be said that the reduction in loss is too excessive or too weak compared to the price, and thus, the Defendant’s damage compensation is sought against the Defendant on the ground of a violation of the duty of customer protection.

B. Determination

In light of the contents of each contract of this case and the process of conclusion thereof, it is difficult to view that the Defendant, a financial institution, bears an incidental duty under the good faith principle in accordance with the duty of explanation and suitability principle as seen earlier, as well as a general duty to prepare a specific plan to prevent the Plaintiffs from expanding their losses as alleged by the Plaintiffs. Therefore, the Plaintiffs’ assertion cannot be accepted without need to further examine.

9. Conclusion

Therefore, the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment stated in the plaintiffs' claim, the claim for confirmation of existence of the plaintiff's mother or mother's obligation, and the claim for damages stated in the plaintiffs' claim under the premise that the defendant violated the obligation to protect the customers, which is based on the premise that each contract of this case was invalid, cancelled, or terminated, is dismissed in entirety.

Judges Park Ho-ho (Presiding Judge)

1)inwards for forward forward transactions: The same is also to the structure in which call options and put options are exchanged to 1:1 at a specific time in the future. In the case of forward exchange contracts, because the contractual exchange rate, which is the conditions of due repayment, is determined through bilateral negotiations, a separate premium is not paid between the parties to the transaction (referred to as zercos, however, a company may deposit a certain percentage of deposit in a bank). In this respect, it is compared to a simple option transaction in which only one of the parties holds options having property value, to which the options are paid to the option party.

2) Call option: Right to purchase any underlying asset at any time in the future at the option price;

3) Inward option: The right to sell the underlying assets at the exchange rate of the event at a certain time in the future.

Note 4) Unclaimed options: simple options not attached to options that can sell or purchase underlying assets;

5)inwards for Maget: A currency option contract which provides for a certain multiple of the contract price of put option in place where the maturity exchange rate is higher than that of the other party when the exchange rate is higher than that of the exercise, instead of being guaranteed a higher exchange rate than that of simple futures exchange.

6) Trage Foreging: A currency option contract in which the parties are not entitled to any rights and obligations if the upper and lower exchange rate is set in advance and the lower exchange rate is located, and where the lower exchange rate is lower than the lower exchange rate, put-in option which can be sold at the lower exchange rate, and put-in option which can be purchased at the lower exchange rate if the lower exchange rate exceeds the upper and lower exchange rate.

Note 7) An option: an option, the effect of which arises or the effect of which is suspended if the price of the underlying asset exceeds a certain level set in advance.

8) Conditions for resale-out (Knock-out): the price of underlying assets, i.e., the condition that the rights cease to exist if the exchange rate reaches a certain level.

9) Terms and conditions of a package subsequent to a settlement agreement: the price of underlying assets, i.e., the terms and conditions of rights when the exchange rate reaches a certain level;

10) Leverage condition: The amount of the call option contract of a bank is increased compared to the amount of put option contract of a company. The amount of put option contract of a company is USD 1,00,000,000,000 if the amount of put option contract of a bank is USD 2,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

Notes 11) 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 fluor (+), the futures exchange rate means the difference between the market exchange rate and the market exchange rate if the gift exchange rate is less than the market exchange rate.

Note 12) The structure is to determine the occurrence of options by setting up a window within the contract period and observing the fulfillment of the condition during each observation period.

Note 13) Under each of the instant contracts, “fixed exchange rate” refers to the exchange rate shown on the 30 page page in Seoul at 11:00 am and 11:00 am in Seoul at the end of each section, which means the average of the cost/$ sale settled two business days and the purchase exchange rate.

Note 14) In accordance with the contract, there may also be cases where it is determined on the basis of the time of maturity (ended time).

Note 15) This is a clause of "Knock-Bench".

Note 16) In this case, when a company exercises put options, the company may sell foreign currency ($$0.3) to “the exercise exchange rate +0.3 】 (the exercise exchange rate - the maturity exchange rate).”

Note 17) In this case, “Contract Amount 】 (Exercise exchange rate - lower exchange rate) x 1.3.”

Note 18) Inward presses: The price different from put puts and puts and puts and puts and puts and puts and puts and sold at the same time with maturity.

19) VaR: Maximum amount of loss that may be incurred during a given period under normal market conditions, which shall be seen later in detail.

Note 20) The Plaintiffs primarily raise an issue of unfairness or foreign exchange avoidance in accordance with the basic form of KIKO currency option contract, such as No. 4-1 contract, and thus, are to be determined based on this.

(21) Article 2-9 of the Foreign Exchange Transaction Regulations (Limit of Foreign Exchange Transfer) (1) The limit of foreign exchange circulation shall be as follows: 1. Foreign exchange circulation shall be an amount equivalent to 50/100 of the equity capital as of the end of the preceding month on the basis of the aggregate amount of purchases in excess of foreign currencies by each foreign country: Provided, That the Export-Import Bank of Korea shall be an amount equivalent to 150/100 of the balance of foreign currency loans, in the case of the Export-Import Bank of Korea, and the amount equivalent to 110/100 of the same forward month on the basis of the difference settlement futures exchange transaction with non-residents on or after January 14, 2004 (if it is established on or after January 14, 2004, the currency exchange circulation excess shall be zero).2. Foreign exchange sale shall be an amount equivalent to 50/100 of the equity capital as of the end of the preceding month on the basis of the aggregate amount of sales by each foreign currency:

22) Article 30 (Risk Management, etc.) of the Regulation on Supervision of Banking Business (AC) (3) Financial Institutions shall assess and manage all kinds of risks, such as credit risks (including credit heavy risks), operating risks, market risks, and non-training transactions, which may arise from various transactions, by type of risks, such as interest risks, liquidity risks, strategies, and flat risks.

Note 23) The fluctuation falling under the option theory can be largely divided into inherent change and historical change in the options model. Generally, in the case of options traded in the options market, an alternative means, such as historical change, etc. where the market is not formed. The inherent change is a reasonable price that reflects all information of the market at the present price, under the premise that the present price of options is a reasonable price that reflects all information of the market. It refers to the price of underlying assets, event price, non-risk interest rate, remaining maturity and the present option price, which are estimated by comparing and calculating the present option price.

Note 24) Change Date: Price options, such as options, are the lowest of the inherent change between the exercise price of options and the market price of underlying assets, and options (the options that may result from the exercise of options at the market price at the current market price in the event of exercise of rights based on a difference between the exercise price and the underlying asset price) and external price options (the options that may result from the exercise of options at the market price at the same time in the event of exercise of rights based on a difference between the exercise price and the underlying asset price) and external price options (the options that may result from the exercise of options at the market price at the market price at the same time in contrast to the internal price option and against the internal price option. Since they have no original value and time value, options at the market price are low, but in the event that there is a change in the yield price at the price at the market situation, the inherent effect of the options is relatively high in the shape of the options at the market price at a relatively high.

주25) 팻테일(fat tail) : 블랙-숄즈 모형에서는 기초자산 로그수익률의 분포는 정규분포를 따른다는 것을 전제로 하나, 실제로는 기초자산의 수익률 분포는 정규분포보다 꼬리가 두꺼운 분포를 띄게 되는 현상(fat tail)이 나타난다. 즉 행사가격에 따라 변동성이 다르게 나타나는 현상이다.

Note 26) Contract amount (port option contract amount) taking into account recreations

Note 27) Contract amount not taking into account the amount of put options (the contract amount of put options)

28) Posion: (a) the current form of an individual investor’s property is the current form of the property. It can be largely divided into a sale and a purchase and distribution. The sale and distribution is also a shock and distribution in the state of the property after the purchase. In the case of a foreign exchange exchange exchange, the foreign currency exchange assets (or foreign exchange purchase amount) are larger than the foreign currency exchange liabilities (or foreign exchange liabilities). In the case of a foreign exchange exchange exchange exchange exchange assets, the foreign currency exchange assets are shocked in cases where the foreign currency assets are less than the foreign currency liabilities, and the foreign currency assets are less than the foreign currency liabilities. Thus, the foreign exchange exchange assets are an open posion (hort posion, posion, foreign currency assets), and in cases where the foreign currency assets are equal to that of the foreign currency assets. Therefore, the foreign currency exchange assets are at least an open posion.

Note 29) The Fund sales commission amounts to 0.8-1.9%, (0.7-1.82%) and the in-kind refund fee amounts to at least 1%.

Note 30) The Plaintiffs appear to be able to terminate the contract by paying the liquidation amount for options in the section with the maturity of which the maturity has not yet arrived (the liquidation amount for a specific option with the maturity of which the maturity has not yet arrived shall be the premium at the time of liquidation of the option concerned. The method of calculating the premium is the same as the method applied at the time of the conclusion of the contract, but the formula changes the variable to the formula, which results in a significant change in the option’s premium), and the right to terminate the Plaintiffs’ assertion in this case is deemed to be the right to terminate the contract on the premise that the Plaintiffs are not obliged to pay the liquidation amount.