1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the Plaintiff’s appeal on the claim for damages pertaining to the currency option contract on March 11, 2008.

1. On January 29, 2008, the first instance court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim for return of unjust enrichment on a currency option contract or claim for damages against the Defendant, and ② on March 11, 2008, the claim for return of unjust enrichment on a currency option contract or claim for damages.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed an appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance, and the trial prior to remand partially accepted the Plaintiff’s appeal, and partly accepted the Plaintiff’s claim for damages relating to the currency option contract (467,640,000 won and damages therefrom) on March 11, 2008, and dismissed the remainder of the Plaintiff’s appeal.

Therefore, both the Plaintiff and the Defendant filed an appeal against the judgment of the party before remanding the case. The Supreme Court reversed the part on the currency option contract on March 11, 2008, among the part on the claim for damages in the judgment of the party prior to remanding the case, and remanded this part of the case to the court of the party. The Plaintiff’s claim for restitution of unjust enrichment and the appeal on the claim for damages relating to the currency option contract on January 29, 208 was dismissed.

Therefore, the part concerning the Plaintiff’s claim for return of unjust enrichment among the judgment of the party prior to remand and the part concerning the claim for damages on the currency option contract on January 29, 2008 is separated and finalized. Thus, this court’s judgment is limited to the Plaintiff’s claim for damages on March 11, 2008 currency option contract.

2. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant as a company engaging in the manufacture and sale of electronic parts, such as eL, which is a mobile phone light form, and as indicated in the attached Tables 1 and 2.

(2) The currency option contract of January 29, 2008, and March 11, 2008, respectively, are “the first currency option contract of this case” and “the second currency option contract of this case” and “the two currency option contract of this case” collectively.

At the time of concluding each currency option contract of this case, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Si bank (hereinafter “stock company”).