beta
Text
1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Defendant bank is a selling company that sells the “No. 23 of SSG SG cirfrith and Belgium CG Belgium 23” and the “No. 30 of SSG cirfrith and Belgium cirrest Investment Trust Co., Ltd. 30” (hereinafter “Fund No. 23”) in which the profits are determined based on the price fluctuation in common shares of common shares of common shares and corporate banks by setting up the SSG Asset Management Co., Ltd. and investing investment trust properties in OTC derivatives linked to common shares of common shares and corporate banks that issued their beneficiary certificates.
B. On November 19, 2007, Plaintiff A attended an investment presentation jointly hosted by Defendant Bank and the Korea Investment Trust Operation Company at the Home Plus Culture Center to hear the explanation on the investment of the Fund. On November 20, 2007 following the date, Plaintiff A visited Defendant Bank Tropsy points in order to subscribe to the Fund, and visited Defendant Bank Tropsy points in order to introduce the Fund, and invested KRW 200,000,000.
C At the time of issuance of an investment prospectus and a summary of the instant fund No. 23 to Plaintiff A, thereby explaining the subject-matter of investment, profit structure, early repayment condition, and risk of principal loss, etc., and subsequently, upon confirmation of Plaintiff A’s written application for the transaction of beneficiary certificates, “the investment prospectus was issued and the explanation of the main contents was given,” and signed and sealed by Plaintiff A.
C. Since June 19, 2008, Plaintiff A’s wife visited Plaintiff A and sent a summary of the investment prospectus and a summary of the Fund No. 30 to Defendant Bank’s U.S. to the U.S. branch of the U.S. bank. Through this, the Plaintiff’s explanation about the investment object, profit structure, early repayment condition, risk of principal loss, etc. was sought, and then, the Plaintiff’s wife received the investment prospectus and explained the main contents.”