1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

2. Of the appeal costs, the part relating to the Plaintiff’s appeal is the Plaintiff.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is by the main text

However, the following judgments are added to the grounds for appeal by the plaintiff (limited part).

2. Additional determination

A. The main point of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that it is not permissible for a person who intentionally committed a tort by taking advantage of the victim’s care to reduce his/her liability on the ground of the victim’s negligence. Therefore, limiting the Defendant’s liability for damages on the ground of the Plaintiff’s mistake of making a rush investment is inconsistent with the ideology of the Compensation Act

B. It is not allowed for a person who intentionally committed a tort by taking advantage of the victim’s care to claim a reduction of his/her liability on the ground of the victim’s negligence. This is because, in cases where such intentional tort constitutes an acquisition act, the limitation of liability, such as offsetting negligence, would eventually bring about a result contrary to the principle of equity or good faith by having the perpetrator ultimately possess profits arising from the tort, and thus, even in cases of intentional tort, it is possible to limit liability based on comparative negligence or the principle of equity in cases where the aforementioned result is not caused.

(1) In light of the above legal principles, the Plaintiff, while making an investment in accordance with the Defendant’s investment recommendation, was deemed to have received a proposal for an exceptional high-income profit in light of the economic situation at the time, and had already been damaged by the “F” investment. In light of the above legal principles, it is difficult to see that the interests arising from the tort in this case were finally reverted to the Defendant, i.e., the following circumstances, that are, it is difficult to view that the interests arising from the tort in this case were finally reverted to the Defendant.