1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) the cumulative profit and loss "59,000" in No. 16 table 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be deemed as "590,000"; (b) the "25,000 shares" in No. 23, No. 18 and No. 25 shall be deemed as "25,000 shares"; and (c) the plaintiff's assertion shall be deemed as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for addition of the following determination as to the plaintiff's assertion, and therefore, it shall be cited as

2. Additional determination

A. 1) The Defendant’s new common stock trading is in conformity with the detonism of the Plaintiff’s assertion. Since the amount of stockholding has been adjusted according to the detonism due to changes in the stock price, it would be logically possible to adjust the amount of stockholding only on the day following the day when the deel value based on the closing price of the pertinent shares was calculated, and it would be common to liquidate the amount slowly over several trading days in close vicinity with the maturity of the instant ls subject to the hedging. Nevertheless, the Defendant, on the same day, did not own shares at the closing price until the day when the deel value was calculated, did not hold shares at the closing price prior to the day, and traded shares at an speculative price by predicting the future price fluctuation regardless of the detonism value prior to the preceding day. Accordingly, the Defendant was placed in an increase in the amount of common stock holding due to the maturity of the instant stock-linked securities, which was linked to the instant underlying asset trading at the market price of the instant case and thus, did not constitute the lower limit of the instant hedging trading at the market price of the instant securities.