1. Of the judgment of the first instance on the conjunctive claim, the part against the defendant exceeding the money ordered to be paid below.

1. The scope of the trial at the court of first instance brought a claim for restitution of unjust enrichment at the court of first instance and for the conjunctive damages. The court of first instance dismissed the primary claim and partly accepted the conjunctive claim.

Accordingly, the defendant filed an appeal against the part against the defendant as to the conjunctive claim.

Therefore, the scope of this court's trial is limited to the part against the defendant among preliminary claims.

2. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is the same as the entry of "1. Basic Facts" among the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, they are cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Judgment on the conjunctive claim

A. 1) Relevant legal principles and legal regulations, in order to establish tort liability against investors in a case where an executive officer or employee of a securities company actively solicits a customer to make an investment. However, in order to establish tort liability against investors in the event of an investment loss, it shall not require active deception as to whether to guarantee a profit, taking into account the transaction circumstances, transaction methods, customer’s investment situation (such as property status, age, social experience, etc.), transaction risk, and the degree of explanation on the transaction. In addition, it is a case where: (a) the pertinent solicitation is likely to interfere with the formation of correct awareness of risks inevitably accompanying the relevant solicitation to ordinary investors lacking experience; or (b) the relevant solicitation is deemed to have been actively recommended in the transaction involving excessive risks in light of the customer’s investment situation; and (c) the relevant act may be deemed to have been deemed to have been unlawful by neglecting the duty to protect the customer (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Da50312, Jan. 10, 2003).