TITLE	Supreme Court en banc Decision 2012Da13637 Decided September 26, 2013¡¼Return of Unjust Enrichment, etc.¡½ [full Text]
Summary
[1] Where the question at issue is whether a knock-in knock-out (¡°KIKO¡±) currency option contract that ¡°A¡± corporation entered into with ¡°B¡± bank constitutes an unfair practice, the case affirming the judgment below holding in the negative [2] The reference point at which to determine whether a certain juristic act constitutes an unfair juristic act (i.e., as of the time of the juristic act), and where a juristic act is not unfair at the time of its formation, whether it is deemed unfair as a matter of course merely because the structure of the act is such as to likely cause a huge loss to either party and a corresponding profit to the other party at a future time depending on the subsequent drastic change in external circumstances (negative) [3] Where a specific contract provision prepared by either party in advance undergoes an individual negotiation, whether such a provision is subject to the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions (negative), and the requirements to find the existence of an individual negotiation [4] Where the question at issue is whether a KIKO currency option contract which ¡°A¡± corporation formed with ¡°B¡± bank is subject to the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions, the case holding that the currency option contract¡¯s structure itself does not constitute a standardized agreement [5] Where a bank sells to a customer a zero-cost over-the-counter (¡°OTC¡±) derivatives product, whether it owes a duty to inform the customer of the option¡¯s theoretical value, fees, and the attendant minus market value (negative in principle) [6] Where a circumstance not constituting the basis of contract formation subsequently changes and causing damages to either party by preventing it from achieving the purpose of the contract intended at the time of its formation, whether a contract rescission may be acknowledged on grounds of change in circumstance (negative in principle), and whether such a legal principle applies likewise to a case where a party alleges contract termination for reasons of change in circumstance in a continuous contract relationship (affirmative) [7] Whether a hedge transaction may be conclusively deemed structurally unsuitable for the mere reason that risk may not be avoided over the entire range (negative) [8] Content and extent of a bank¡¯s duty to protect a customer upon entering into a currency option contract with a company whose purpose is foreign exchange hedging [9] Content, scope, and extent of a financial institution¡¯s duty to explain owed to an unsophisticated customer when trading over-the-counter (¡°OTC¡±) derivatives requiring sophisticated knowledge and analytical ability [10] Exceptional cases in which comparative negligence is not allowed even when there was the victim¡¯s negligence involved in causing or aggravating tort damages

Prev	Supreme Court Decision 2013Do9616 Decided October 11, 2013¡¼Fraud¡½
Next	Supreme Court en banc Decision 2012Hu2463 Decided September 26, 2013¡¼Cancellation of Trademark Registration¡½