1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff shall bear the total costs of the lawsuit after filing the appeal.

purport, purport, and.

1. After remanding, the first instance court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim for damages against the Defendant. The first instance court prior to remand partly accepted the claim for damages arising from the violation of the duty of customer protection among the claims for damages, and dismissed both the claim for damages arising from deception and the claim for damages arising from deception, and the claim for damages arising from deception and the claim for return of unjust enrichment selected in the first instance court prior to remand.

The Plaintiff and the Defendant appealed against the above judgment. The judgment of remand reversed and remanded the part concerning the claim for damages due to the violation of the duty of customer protection, and dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim for restitution of unjust enrichment and other claims for damages.

Therefore, the scope of the trial after remand is limited to the damages claim due to the violation of the customer protection obligation that was destroyed and remanded by the judgment of remand.

2. The reasons why this Court uses this part of the basic facts shall be cited as they are in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Determination on a claim for damages due to a violation of a duty to protect customers

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1 is that the instant contract was designed to cover the costs of the instant opposite transaction. The Defendant, while emphasizing only the possibility of incurring losses arising from a currency option contract and a futures exchange contract with the existing Gyeongnam Bank, made exchange hedge transactions with the Gyeongnam Bank about eronomization that flows into Korea every month, soliciting the Plaintiff, who does not need any additional exchange hedging, to enter into the instant contract, which is a conversion speculative transaction that has almost little function in exchange hedging. Furthermore, the instant opposite transaction was conducted only for 2 months and 2 years, while the instant contract period was 2 years, is not suitable for raising the costs of the instant opposite transaction.

In particular, when the exchange rate increases rapidly, the plaintiff suffers an unlimited loss.