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. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 20, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into an insurance contract for fidelity guarantee with the insured Intervenor, the Defendant, the Intervenor’s employee, and the insured amount of KRW 100 million, between the Plaintiff’s subordinate investment securities corporation (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) and the Intervenor.

(hereinafter “instant insurance contract”). (b)

From January 201 to June 2012, the Defendant managed the consignment account of B, which is a customer, caused 17,941,030 won for a period of four months due to frequent revolving transactions. As a result, the Defendant incurred a loss of KRW 43 million compared to the principal amount of KRW 48,50 million in the said account.

C. B filed a civil petition with the Financial Supervisory Service with respect to a loss incurred in the consignment account. During the investigation process, as the Defendant’s excessive transaction incurred a loss, the Intervenor and B received 8 million won out of the total amount of loss and received oral recommendation to withdraw the civil petition, and the Intervenor and B agreed that the Intervenor paid 8 million won to B as agreed amount on September 27, 2013, and B did not raise any objection to the above account loss.

On March 14, 2014, the Intervenor claimed insurance money to the Plaintiff according to the instant insurance contract. On March 31, 2013, the Plaintiff paid insurance money to the Intervenor KRW 8 million.

[Grounds for recognition] The entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 15 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act prohibits a securities company from soliciting unfair trading in light of the comprehensive and discretionary trading of securities companies, customer’s investment purpose, status of property, experience in investment, etc., and imposes a duty of due care on customer as a good manager. As seen earlier, the Defendant, while managing the consignment account of B, has violated the above duty of care and transferred the Intervenor’s fee to the level of 50% of the principal.