The costs of appeal are assessed against each appellant.

1. As to the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal No. 1, this part of the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal is nothing more than an error in the selection of evidence and fact-finding which belong to the lower court’s exclusive right as a fact-finding court

2. As to the Defendant’s grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2

A. A dealer stipulated in the former Indirect Investment Asset Management Business Act (amended by Act No. 8635 of Aug. 3, 2007 and enforced on Feb. 4, 2009; hereinafter “former Indirect Investment Act”) has a duty to protect investors by providing investors with correct information on the profit structure of investment products and risk factors in soliciting them to make investments.

The seller’s duty to protect investors cannot be excluded solely on the ground that the investor is a professional investor, not an ordinary investor, or an investment is made through private placement indirect investment fund, and only the characteristics and risk level of the investment product, experience and expertise of investors, and form of transaction are considered in determining the scope and degree of the investor’s duty to protect investors.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da17220, Feb. 26, 2015). (B)

The judgment below

According to the reasons, ① Each of the instant funds provides investment funds to vessel owners as vessel purchase funds, and vessel owners enter into a bareboat charter with a charterer for a vessel purchased, and a bareboat charterer shall pay charterage to vessel owners based on regular charterages or charterages received after concluding a time charter contract or a bareboat charter contract with a shipping company, and the instant funds shall have the vessel owners pay charterages based on regular charterages or charterages received. The funds of this case shall have the vessel owners receive profits from the vessel owners and make the repayment of the beneficiary certificates.