1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Summary and key issue of the parties' arguments

A. Although Plaintiff C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”)’s discretionary investment product is highly likely to incur losses exceeding the invested principal, the Defendant, via D, solicited the Plaintiff to enter into an inappropriate discretionary investment contract in light of the Plaintiff’s investment purpose, situation, experience, etc., which is an ordinary investor, in violation of the Capital Market and Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (hereinafter “Capital Markets Act”), and breached the duty to explain by not providing accurate information on the structure, risk, etc. of the discretionary investment product, and made an unfair solicitation by notifying the Plaintiff of the content that is likely to provide a conclusive judgment on an uncertain matter or to mislead the Plaintiff to believe that it is certain.

As such, the Plaintiff invested KRW 58,270,121,329 in total in accordance with the discretionary investment contract with C Co., Ltd. on August 8, 201, and the Plaintiff suffered loss of KRW 23,613,818,628 on August 8, 201.

Therefore, the Defendant, as a financial investment business entity under the Capital Markets Act, has violated the suitability principle under Article 46 of the Capital Markets Act, the duty to explain Article 47, and the prohibition of unfair solicitation under Article 49 of the same Act, and thus, is obligated to pay 7 billion won, which is part of the Plaintiff’s losses, and damages for delay.

B. Defendant D merely introduced E, the representative of CFC, to the Plaintiff in a private relationship, and the Plaintiff only concluded a discretionary investment contract with CFC after hearing the explanation of E’s discretionary investment goods. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant made an investment recommendation to the Plaintiff under the Capital Markets Act.

Even if the plaintiff considers D's investment solicitation as the defendant's investment recommendation, the plaintiff sought high profits and has experience in investing a considerable amount of futures trading and derivatives, and fully understood C's discretionary investment commodities.