209 Gaz. 1980 Damage

*

* Securities Company *

September 9, 2009

October 14, 2009

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 273,164,94 won with 5% interest per annum from March 5, 2009 to October 14, 2009, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 2/5 shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 465,00,000 won with 5% interest per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of this judgment and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. At the time of October 2007, the Plaintiff was recommended to invest in the financial products of the Defendant Company from A, working as the vice head of the distribution complex of the Defendant Company, and the Plaintiff comprehensively entrusted the Defendant Company with the transaction account (Account Number**) and then comprehensively delegated A with the transaction of financial products sold by the Defendant Company through the said account.

(b) The plaintiff transferred KRW 120,00,00 on October 15, 2007 through *** to A's corporate bank account (Account Number****************** on October 22, 2007, the stock-linked securities *********************** on the account assessment status and product description stating that the above KRW 120,00,000 was invested.

C. On October 24, 2007, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 100,000,000 to the above enterprise bank account on December 12, 2007, and KRW 100,000,000 through the wife****** on December 27, 2007, the Plaintiff sells the Defendant company to the above enterprise bank account ********* an investment trust K-1, the account evaluation status and product description stating that the total amount of KRW 180,00,00 was invested.

D. The Plaintiff was solicited from A to transfer KRW 50,00,00 to A’s above account on December 28, 2007, and received KRW 52,400,000 from A on January 7, 2008 as the Plaintiff’s bank account (Account Number*** in the name of investment principal and profit). The Plaintiff subsequently transferred KRW 50,00,000 to A’s above account on February 5, 2008 through * in order to re-investment in a short-term investment product, and received KRW 50,00,000 from A in the name of investment principal and profit, respectively.

E. The Plaintiff transferred KRW 35,00,000 to A’s above account on April 11, 2008 through wife****.

F. On May 30, 2008, the Plaintiff visited the Daegu Branch of the Defendant Company, working for A, entered KRW 53,000,000 in face value, KRW 70,000 in a cashier's check of KRW 17,000 in face value, and one cashier's check of KRW 17,000 in face value, and issued to A directly from A ************** KRW 140,80,000 in the derivatives as principal is invested in KRW 128,00 in the derivatives, and the amount assessed at the time is 186,50,00 in the bonds mixed investment trust products **** The total amount assessed at the time is 193,916,589 won in each account on May 28, 2008, and the Plaintiff's certificate of account balance of KRW 390,390,90,939,390,90,390,39400,39, etc.

G. On June 2008, the Plaintiff received two copies of the account assessment status in which the principal of investment KRW 150,100,000 has been invested in each of the securities **********the account in which the principal of investment KRW 150,100,00 has been invested in each of the securities ****** was issued two copies of the account assessment status stating that the principal of investment KRW 150,100,00 has been invested in each of the securities.

H. The Plaintiff transferred KRW 30,00,000 on September 3, 2008 to A’s above account through ***, and KRW 30,00,00 on November 20, 208, respectively, and received KRW 1,095,410 on September 23, 2008 from A as a revenue for the said investment amount, respectively.

(i) On November 28, 2008, the Plaintiff visited the Daegu Branch of the Defendant Company to make an investment of KRW 145,154,455 in derivatives **** the amount assessed at the time of investment of principal of KRW 198,50,00 in derivatives 145,154,45;** the amount assessed at the time of investment of principal in bonds mixed investment trust products 198,50,000 ** the amount assessed at the time of investment is KRW 204,362,772; the amount assessed at the time of investment of KRW 112,10,00,00 in the 146-time stock-linked Securities issued by the Defendant Company; the amount assessed at the time is KRW 112,716,500; the current account valuation status of each account on November 19, 2008; and the total amount assessed at KRW 204,208,284,209,29427,27,294,27,284,200

(j) However, A did not invest the money received from the Plaintiff in the financial instruments sold by the Defendant Company, used the money to repay the money invested by other investors or arbitrarily manage it, etc., and issued to the Plaintiff each balance certificate in the name of the head of the Defendant Company Distribution Complex or the head of the Daegu Branch under the name of the Defendant Company Distribution Complex or the head of the Daegu Branch.

(k) On February 27, 2008, the Plaintiff has no other experience in investing in financial instruments sold by securities companies, except where the Plaintiff subscribed to ** in a bank *** in a stock-type fund,** in a stock-type fund,** in a stock-type fund,* in a stock-type fund, KRW 100,000 per month.

[Ground of Recognition: Facts without dispute; entry of Gap evidence 3 through 14, 16 through 18, 20 (including partial numbers), stock company of this court* Results of fact inquiry about the president * purport of the whole pleadings and purport of the pleadings]

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. According to the above facts, Gap, an employee of the defendant company, was comprehensively delegated by the plaintiff to trade financial products sold by the defendant company through the transaction account in the name of the plaintiff established in the defendant company. As such, as if it invests in the above financial products transaction, it would have caused damage to the plaintiff by deceiving the plaintiff and receiving money from the plaintiff for other purposes. Such illegal acts committed by Gap are conducted in the course of concluding a financial products transaction agreement with the plaintiff as employee of the defendant company and performing such an agreement, and it is reasonable to view that they are related to the act of performing duties as employee of the defendant company. Thus, barring special circumstances, the defendant company is liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages caused to the plaintiff due to the above illegal acts committed by Gap as an employer in connection with its duties.

B. Judgment on the defendant's argument

1) As to this, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff transferred the investment money to A’s personal account, not its own account, and received money as profit from A without filing an application for repurchase. Thus, it is insufficient to recognize that there was a bad faith or gross negligence on the part of the Defendant as to the fact that the Plaintiff did not have any connection with the execution of the business affairs of the Defendant, on the sole basis of the aforementioned reasons alleged by the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to prove that there was no connection with the execution of the business affairs of the Defendant. Therefore, the above assertion is without merit (In light of the above, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff was aware that the amount transferred to A was invested in the Defendant Company’s financial products under the name of the head of the branch office of the Defendant Company, on several occasions, or that the Plaintiff was issued a balance certificate on the balance evaluation amount of the Plaintiff’s account, stating the details of the transaction in the Plaintiff’s account, and that there was no other evidence to prove that there was gross negligence).

2) In addition, the defendant asserts that he had fulfilled due diligence in the appointment and supervision of A, but it is not sufficient to recognize the above evidence only with the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 1-2, 2, 4 through 8, and there is no other evidence to recognize it. Thus, the above assertion is without merit.

3. Scope of liability for damages

A. Calculation of damages

The amount of damages sustained by the Plaintiff due to a tort of A is the value of an object at the time of the tort. As such, the total amount of KRW 565,00,000 (=120,000 on October 15, 2007 + + + KRW 80,000 on December 24, 2007 + + KRW 10,000 on December 12, 2007 + + KRW 50,000 on December 28, 2007 + KRW 50,000 on December 5, 2008 + KRW 20,000 on February 5, 208 + KRW 20,000 on April 35, 200, + KRW 00 on May 30, 2008 + KRW 40,00 on May 30, 200, + KRW 300 on May 30, 2008).

B. Limitation on liability

On the other hand, the fact that the plaintiff transferred money to A's bank account, not to deposit money into the bank account in its own name, is as seen earlier. The plaintiff's own agreement to make a transaction of financial products sold by the defendant company exclusively with the defendant company's sales and to make an investment and notify the plaintiff after making an independent judgment. In this fact or circumstance, the plaintiff is negligent in neglecting the remaining attention of trust in Gap even though he should have exercised more attention as to whether the normal investment is made. Such negligence of the plaintiff is caused by the occurrence or expansion of damages, and thus, it should be considered in calculating the amount of damages of the defendant company, but it is reasonable to view that the rate of negligence of the plaintiff is 40% in light of all the circumstances, and therefore, the liability of the defendant company is limited to 60% out of the amount of damages of the plaintiff.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 273,164,94 won (=45,274,990 won x 0.6) and to pay damages for delay at each rate of 20% per annum under the Civil Act from March 5, 2009, which is the date of this decision, to October 14, 2009, where it is deemed reasonable for the defendant to resist the existence or scope of the obligation of performance of this case, as requested by the plaintiff, from March 5, 2009, after the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the date of full payment.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

For judges of the presiding judge -

Judges - Dom- Dom--Dom-gu.

Judges Kim Yoon-hee------