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. Basic facts

A. The defendant is a company established for the purpose of similar investment advisory business, which establishes and operates a securities-based broadcasting company C, and thereby provides users who are paid members with information, such as recommended items, i.e., books, business precision analysis, and type diagnosis services, and video education services.

B. Around January 23, 2018, the Plaintiff joined the Defendant’s fee member via the Defendant’s Lomater D on the part of the Defendant, and approved 3.6 million won by credit card to pay user fees for the 12-month period.

C. On the same day, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 3 million in his consignment transaction account (KIKO Securities E) and purchased KRW 1,372 per share of FF shares in the KOSDAQ market on January 26, 2018 on the recommendation of the Defendant’s issues on the same day, and sold all of the shares (the name of the company is changed to “G”) to KRW 1,575 per share on August 22, 2018.

The Plaintiff’s above fee member service contract terminated on August 14, 2018 upon the Plaintiff’s termination request.

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff filed a claim for refund of usage fees with the purport that “the Defendant’s D, while making an investment of KRW 3 million in the Plaintiff with the expertise of investment in securities, deceiving the Plaintiff, such as that he would be responsible for up to KRW 30 million and be guaranteed revenues, and that he paid the Plaintiff usage fees by joining the Defendant’s pay member.” The Plaintiff sought payment of KRW 1,50,000,000, which was finally approved from the credit card settlement amount of KRW 3.6 million.

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant’s telemerter D et al. deceiving the Plaintiff as above beyond the extent of providing information or suggesting opinions on the investment in securities. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

B. The Plaintiff’s claim for a loss of investment has invested in the F State that Defendant D would purchase, and its time of sale upon its solicitation.