The part of the judgment below against the defendant regarding the conjunctive claim shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be reversed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. A financial investment business entity shall, when it makes an investment recommendation to an ordinary investor, explain the details of the financial investment instrument, the risks involved in the investment, and other matters prescribed by Presidential Decree so that the ordinary investor can understand them, shall not make a false or distorted explanation or omit any material fact that may have a significant impact on the investor's reasonable judgment on investment or the value of the relevant financial investment instrument, or shall be liable to compensate for damages inflicted upon the ordinary investor

[The Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (hereinafter “Capital Markets Act”)

() Articles 47(1) and (3), and 48(1) of the Act. In this case, whether a financial investment business entity is required to provide an explanation to an investor shall be determined by comprehensively considering the characteristics and risk level of the relevant financial investment instrument, investor’s investment experience and ability, etc. However, if an investor or his/her agent is sufficiently aware of the details thereof, it cannot be said that the financial investment business entity’s obligation to explain to an investor is not recognized even with respect

(2) On April 23, 2015, according to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the evidence duly admitted, the following facts are as follows: (a) the Korea Shipping Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Korea Shipping Co., Ltd.”) was assessed by two credit rating companies in order to publicly offer the instant corporate bonds, which are guaranteed bonds; (b) all the two companies assessed the credit rating as “BB” which is investment grade; (c) the Defendant, a financial investment business entity, acquired the amount of KRW 20 billion out of the instant corporate bonds and sold them to the Plaintiffs who are ordinary investors; and (d) the Defendant’s employees informed the Plaintiffs that the credit rating of the instant corporate bonds is “BB” and the original loss was incurred; and (c) most of the Plaintiffs are as follows.