Of the lower judgment’s part on the claim for damages, the part on the currency option contract of March 11, 2008 is reversed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Plaintiff’s ground of appeal

A. As to Article 1 of the Act, if a bank enters into a currency option contract with an enterprise with a purpose of foreign exchange hedging, it shall not invite the relevant enterprise to enter into such a currency option contract, and if it solicits an OTC derivatives transaction with a high risk, it shall bear a heavy duty to protect customers compared to other financial institutions. Thus, if a bank, in violation of such duty, actively solicits a currency option contract which causes an excessive risk in light of the management situation of the relevant enterprise, and thereby, constitutes tort: Provided, That whether a bank solicits an exchange contract, which is not appropriate for the company, is determined by taking into account the expected foreign currency inflow amount of the relevant enterprise, the necessity of foreign exchange hedging, the degree of foreign exchange hedging, the transaction purpose, the transaction experience, the level of knowledge or understanding of the relevant contract, and the Plaintiff’s sales amount of KRW 2.76 billion for six billion per annum 76 billion per annum 2,760,000,0000,000 won per annum 36.7 billion won per year, and the Plaintiff’s sales amount per year 26.