The part against the Defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

1. As to ground of appeal No. 1, a dealer under the former Indirect Investment Asset Management Business Act (amended by Act No. 8635 of Aug. 3, 2007 and enforced on Feb. 4, 2009 pursuant to Article 2 of the Addenda to the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act; hereinafter “Indirect Investment Act”) bears the duty of care to protect investors by providing investors with correct information on the profit structure of investment trust and risk factors, so that investors can make reasonable investment decisions based on such information.

In addition, the seller's duty to protect investors at such investment recommendation stage cannot be deemed excluded solely for the reason that the investor is not an ordinary investor but a professional investor. However, the extent of the investor's duty to protect investors can be determined differently considering the characteristics and risk level of the investment trust property, investor's investment experience and expertise.

In this regard, the court below is just in rejecting the defendant's assertion that professional investors, such as the plaintiff, who are insurance companies under the Insurance Business Act, are exempt from the duty to explain under the Indirect Investment Act, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles on the duty to explain borne by the selling company under the

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

A. When a selling company that sells investment trust certificates in accordance with the Indirect Investment Act solicits a customer to purchase beneficiary certificates, it has a duty to protect the customer by clearly explaining the characteristics and major contents of the beneficiary certificates, including the risks associated with the investment, so that the customer can make a reasonable investment decision based on the information, and when the customer suffers loss as a result of the violation of such duty of care, it shall be held liable for tort damage. However, the beneficiary certificates shall be held liable.