1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 4, 2012, the Plaintiff purchased B corporate bonds of Hanjin Shipping Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B corporate bonds”) with the maturity of May 24, 2013 and the surface interest of 5.6% from the Defendant (i.e., the purchase price of KRW 10,132 x the purchase price of KRW 29,609.2).

B. On August 14, 2012, the Plaintiff purchased D debentures of Han Shipping (hereinafter “D debentures”) at KRW 300,000,306 (i.e., the purchase price of KRW 10,298 x the purchase price of KRW 29,131.9) upon the Defendant’s employee C, that “A defect in the management of the bonds in the form of the purchase of other bonds with the purchase price for the corporate bonds held by the Plaintiff, which caused the decline in the Bank of Korea’s standard interest rate, was sold in total at KRW 301,119,168; and (ii) purchased D debentures at KRW 300,00,306 (i.e., the purchase price of KRW 10,298 x the purchase price of KRW 29,131.9) at the request of the Defendant’s employee C.

(hereinafter referred to as “the replacement sale of this case” in total of the sale of corporate bonds B and the purchase of D corporate bonds.

Since then, the management status of Hanjin Shipping applied for legal management around August 2016, and the rehabilitation procedure began on September 1, 2016 by Seoul Rehabilitation Court 2016 Ma10211.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 6, 7, 9 (each number is included; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The gist of the parties’ assertion 1) Although the Defendant knew of the risk that Hanjin Shipping will enter the legal management, it did not explain it to the Plaintiff, and instead, by deceiving Hanjin Shipping as a superior company corporate bond, actively recommended the purchase of D company bonds.

B) Upon maturity B’s corporate bonds amounting to KRW 296,00 (i.e., par value of KRW 10,000 x number of KRW 29,609.2) whereas D’s corporate bonds amount to KRW 291,319,00 (i.e., face value of KRW 10,000 x purchase volume of KRW 29,131.9 (i.e., face value of KRW 10,00 x purchase volume of KRW 29,131.9). As such, the Plaintiff would incur losses on the principal amount of KRW 4,773,00 in itself, and