1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant Dongyang Securities Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd”) is a company that conducts business such as investment trading business, investment brokerage business, etc. under the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (hereinafter “Capital Markets Act”).

B. On February 26, 2008, the Plaintiff opened a consignment account (Account Number: D; hereinafter “instant account”) at the Defendant Company C’s branch, and requested Defendant B to manage the instant account while doing stock transactions.

C. On May 12, 201, the Plaintiff visited the said branch office of the Defendant Company to open a credit transaction account and set up one million won as a credit transaction deposit.

On the same day, the Plaintiff signed the “certificate of investment information by ordinary investors” that identified the Plaintiff’s final investment inclination as “public investment type.”

At the time of July 21, 2011, the deposit held by the Account was KRW 62,300,856. The shares held at the time were 115,061,00 won from July 21, 2011 to July 21, 201.

8. Of the closing price by day between November 1, 200, the lower price was equivalent. E. The Plaintiff withdrawn from the instant account the KRW 19,483,071 on August 23, 2011, and the KRW 33,505,649 on August 26, 201, thereby suspending the transaction of stocks through the instant account. [In the absence of dispute over the grounds for recognition, the Plaintiff’s entries in the evidence Nos. 3, 8, 9, and Nos. 2, 4, 5, and 6, and the purport of the entire pleadings, as a whole.

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion lies in the Plaintiff’s assertion that the transaction of discretionary investment is deemed to have been made in connection with the existence of an agreement on the sale of discretionary investment and the transaction of discretionary investment.

However, examining the contents of the Plaintiff and the Defendants’ public defense, the Plaintiff asserts that “the above mentioned is a voluntary trade and the Defendants’ assertion of discretionary trade is merely an explanation to reflect the Defendants’ assertion of discretionary trade.” As such, the Plaintiff’s assertion of “voluntary trade” is the cause of the instant claim.