1. The plaintiff's appeal and the claim extended in the trial prior to the remand are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part is as stated in Paragraph 1 of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for modification as follows. Thus, this part of the reasoning is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The respective “Yaul-in relationship” of each “Yaul-in relationship between Class 3 and Class 4 and Class 14, and each “Yaul-in relationship between Class 8 and Class 9,” respectively. Each “Yaul-in relationship for the first instance trial” is revised to each “Yaul-in relationship for the first instance trial,” and each “Saul-in relationship for the second instance trial” is revised to each “Yaul-in.” On the fourth of the first instance judgment, each of the “instant contracts” is revised to each of the “instant Contracts,” respectively.

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion withdrawal of all the remaining arguments except for the claim on the ground that the Plaintiff violated the suitability principle and the duty to explain on the seventh day of pleading before remanding.

1) Although the instant currency option contract is a contract not suitable for the purpose of avoiding exchange risk in light of the Plaintiff’s management situation, such as the determination of the contract price for a call option exceeding the Plaintiff’s export price, the Defendant violated the suitability principle by soliciting the Plaintiff to enter into the instant currency option contract. In addition, the Defendant recommended the Plaintiff to enter into the instant currency option contract without fulfilling its explanation on the key contents, including the structure and risk of the instant currency option contract.

3) Therefore, since the Defendant violated the suitability principle and duty to explain when entering into the instant currency option contract between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff total damages incurred by the Plaintiff, including KRW 1,873,214,179, and damages for delay. (B) The suitability principle and the duty to explain.