1. Appeal as to the claim for damages against Defendant Korea Development Bank link Co., Ltd.

1. After remanding the case, the first instance court dismissed both the claim for return of unjust enrichment and the claim for damages against the Defendant Industrial Bank of Plaintiff C&C, and the Defendant C&C’s respective claim for return of unjust enrichment. The first instance court prior to remand dismissed all the plaintiffs’ respective claim for return of unjust enrichment (including the claim which was selectively added in the first instance prior to remand), and partly accepted each claim for damages.

All of the plaintiffs and the defendants appealed to the above judgment. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the part concerning the plaintiffs' respective claims for damages in the judgment prior to remand, and dismissed the appeal on the plaintiffs' respective claims for return of unjust enrichment.

Therefore, the scope of the trial after remand is limited to the part of the claim for damages against the defendant Industrial Bank of the plaintiff knife, the plaintiff knife's defendant knife's knife's knife's knife's knife's knife's knife's knife

2. 기초사실 이 법원이 이 부분에 관하여 쓸 이유는, ① 제1심 판결문 제3쪽 제3행의 “증인 A”을 “제1심 증인 A”으로 고치고, ② 제1심 판결문 제7쪽 제5행의 “ ㈏ 계약금액 : 풋옵션 JPY 30,000,000”을 “㈏ 계약금액 : 매월 JPY 30,000,000”으로 고치며, ③ 제1심 판결문 제8쪽 제14행의 “2010. 11. 현재 1,100원대에 머무르고 있다”를 “2010. 5.경까지의 환율은 주로 1,100원대에서 변동하였다”로 고치고, ④ 같은 쪽 제14 내지 16행의 “1,600원에 육박하였다가 현재 1,300원대를 유지하고 있다”를 “2008.말경부터 2009. 3.경까지 사이에 1,400~1,600원대를 오르내리다가 2009. 4.경부터 2009. 말경까지 1,200~1,300원대를 유지하였다”로 고치는 것 외에는, 제1심 판결의 이유 중 “1. 기초사실” 부분 기재와 같으므로, 민사소송법 제420조 본문에 따라 이를 그대로 인용한다.

3...