All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A. If a financial investment business entity solicits a customer trusted in its trust through past transactions, etc. to enter into a contract beyond the mere introduction of financial investment instruments handled by another financial investment business entity, and actively participates in such solicitation and explanation, etc. Furthermore, if a customer, based on the trust of the financial investment business entity, took the customer into a contract with another financial investment business entity or made a recommendation and explanation in making a decision on whether to make an investment, the financial investment business entity may be deemed to have made an “investment solicitation” under Article 9(4) of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (hereinafter “Capital Markets Act”). If such evaluation is conducted, the financial investment business entity shall be deemed to bear the duty of explanation for the customer, even if it does not directly enter into a contract on financial investment instruments, etc. with the customer.

(Supreme Court Decision 2013Da217498 Decided January 29, 2015). B.

The lower court introduced the instant discretionary investment contract upon the Plaintiff’s request from the Plaintiff to recommend the Investment Agency. In this case, the lower court did not merely simply inform the Plaintiff A of the existence of the instant discretionary investment contract, but also explained the outline of the instant discretionary investment contract and its stability and profitability based on the investment proposal received from the HF Investment Advisory Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “S”). If the changeability is low, the Defendant’s employee D is a certain investment that proceeds.