On November 2010, Seoul central district court has announced its views on the KIKO issue through a 100 or so series of rulings. However, the rulings lack the necessary examination of the contract structure as well as consideration for the different circumstances in each of the law suits. KIKO contracts does have some hedging properties to a certain extent. However, they are more or less a speculative investment tool rather than a hedging tool. 1:2 leverage KIKO contracts as in the cases, would sell 2 call options and obtain higher risk in order to finance the cost of buying 1 put option or the primary cost of hedging. Another words, 1:2 leverage KIKO contracts by its structure, does not reduce risk but rather increases it which is why KIKO contracts should not be considered hedging tools. Considering the zero cost nature, the profit margin and the liability of the involved parties, fraud and mistake may well be discussed as are some cases overseas. However, all the 100 or so lawsuits have different factual circumstances which needs to be considered separately case by case. In one extreme, there may be cases where the court should acknowledge the customers or the company`s claims of fraud by the banks. On the other extreme, there may be cases where the court should accept the bank`s defense ruling the company`s intent as speculative investment. Mistake or misrepresentation will be an issue somewhere in the middle ground. There will be varying rulings from the courts on different cases but most cases will likely be an issue of mistake and misrepresentation.