1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Under the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, the corresponding part of the grounds of the judgment of the first instance (from 10 to 6, 5, i.e., the judgment of the first instance) shall be quoted in this part of the basic facts.

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the cause of the instant claim is as follows: (a) the Plaintiff asserts the Defendant’s claim for damages due to the Defendant’s default or tort and the claim for damages under the Electronic Financial Transactions Act

(In the first instance trial, the purport is basically the same as the argument of the defendant, and this court added part of the argument about the defendant's non-performance of obligation).

1) The Defendant, as a financial investment business entity (investment broker) that entered into an agreement on consignment with the Plaintiff on consignment, has the duty of care to establish an internal control system and measures to prevent an accident caused by a computer error, such as the instant case, and the instant massive orders were caused by the Plaintiff’s violation of the duty of care or negligence. ① The Defendant is legally responsible for managing and operating the instant MF in accordance with the relevant regulations, and at least the time during which the Defendant agreed with the Plaintiff to manage and operate the instant MF, the Defendant did not appropriately manage and operate the instant PEP in violation of the relevant regulations. ② Although the Plaintiff is not an investor to whom the post consignment deposit is applicable under the relevant regulations, the Defendant applied the provision on post consignment deposit in violation of the relevant regulations. ③ The Defendant failed to meet the internal control system (such as the order limit, daily transaction limit, etc.) that can cause a large number of errors due to a computer system error, and the Defendant received the instant order without checking the suitability of the Plaintiff’s order for the purchase of the instant large volume, and the Defendant received the instant order.