The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

In fact, the defendant is a company engaged in investment trading business and investment brokerage business under the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act and a financial company under the Electronic Financial Transactions Act. The plaintiff is an ordinary investor who opened an account with the defendant and has traded shares.

At around 10:00 on March 11, 2020, the Defendant’s computer system caused error in the power supply system of the data storage device, and thus, in the case of HTS, which is a system that enables the transaction of financial investment instruments through a computer, access and order can be received, but the data on the real-time balance screen was not inquired. In the case of MTS, which is a system that allows the transaction of financial investment instruments through a mobile phone, a customer who connects before the occurrence of trouble without a new connection was ordered, but the data on the balance screen was normalized at around 13:30.

On March 11, 2020, the Plaintiff visited C Center, the Defendant’s branch office, around 11:30.

[Ground of recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap 1, 3, 7, 8 evidence, Eul 1 and 5 evidence, and the plaintiff's summary of the plaintiff's claim as to the ground of claim as to the whole of the pleadings, the plaintiff was visiting C Center, which is the defendant's branch, at around 11:30 on March 11, 2020, to sell the whole part of the shares owned by the plaintiff. However, since the defendant's computer system cannot be confirmed due to the defendant's disorder, the plaintiff could not sell the whole part of the shares owned by the plaintiff

Judgment

Although the Defendant, a financial company, has the duty to maintain and operate the computer network normally so that the Plaintiff, a customer, can smoothly engage in stock transactions, the fact that the failure of the computer network occurred at the time of March 11, 2020 is as seen earlier.

However, according to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 4 and 7, the plaintiff visited the C Center, which is the defendant's branch office, around 11:30 on March 11, 2020, and the plaintiff's employee should not inquire into the mobile phone to sell it.