beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 70,251,987 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from February 7, 2014 to October 25, 2016, and the following.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On March 11, 2012, the Plaintiff’s Intervenor (hereinafter “Supplementary Intervenor”) entered into an insurance contract for fidelity guarantee with the Plaintiff, whereby the Intervenor, the surety, the Defendant, the amount of insurance coverage of the Defendant, the amount of KRW 150,000,000, and the insurance period from March 111, 2012 to March 10, 2013, to compensate the Defendant for property damage suffered by the insured by failing to perform his/her responsibilities as a good manager in performing the business on behalf of the insured.
(B) The insurance period after the expiration of the above insurance period was the end of March 10, 2014.
From June 21, 2012 to July 4, 2013, the Defendant: (a) was entrusted with the sale and purchase of futures options by six customers (hereinafter “the instant victims”) without sufficiently explaining the risk of the transaction of futures options while working as an agent for the auxiliary intervenor Daegu Seongbuk Industrial Complex; and (b) was entrusted with the sale and purchase of futures options by six customers (hereinafter “the instant victims”); and (c) acquired or disposed of total amount of KRW 8,272 cases, 16,976,628,600 for investment judgment on financial investment instruments.
(c) As a result of such futures option trading, D incurred a loss of KRW 156,974,478, E 89,586,530, F 62,670,866, G 89,026,255, H and I incurred a loss of KRW 58,691,595, and from July 29, 2013
8. By November 13, 2013, the Financial Supervisory Service confirmed that the Intervenor would accept the total amount of 100,193,684 won agreed upon, taking into account the negligence of the victims of this case.
The Intervenor paid KRW 31,394,896 to D on November 28, 2013, KRW 17,917,306 to E, KRW 12,534,173 to G, KRW 17,805,251 to H, KRW 10,660,997, and KRW 9,81,061 to H, respectively, and the victims of the instant case agreed to waive their right to claim damages against the Intervenor.
E. On December 24, 2013, the supplementary intervenor personnel committee violated the principle of suitability, such as the prohibition of illegal discretionary trade, the prohibition of corrective agreements on losses, and the principle of suitability.