2. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The Defendants pay to each Plaintiff 1,313,251,748 won with 5% interest per annum from October 31, 201 to the service date of a copy of the instant complaint, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

2. The defendants

The text of paragraph (1) is as follows.

(a) Establishment under subparagraphs 1 and 2 of the Act on the Special Asset Investment Trust due to New Private Offering Ray;

1) On December 7, 2007, Defendant Substitute Asset Management Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Substitute Asset Management Co., Ltd”) established “Special Asset Investment Trust No. 10 billion won in the investment trust property as follows pursuant to the former Indirect Investment Asset Management Business Act (repealed by Act No. 8635, Feb. 4, 2009; hereinafter the same) and purchased 5 billion won in the beneficiary certificates of the investment trust, respectively.

(1) Asset management company: Defendant alternatively.

2. Trustee Company: Han Bank (hereinafter referred to as "one bank").

(3) A selling company of beneficiary certificates: Amerz comprehensive financial securities company (hereinafter referred to as "merz securities").

(4) The investment trust property of 10 billion won.

(5) The due date of December 7, 2010

2) On December 27, 2007, the Defendant, instead of Defendant, set up “Special Asset Investment Trust No. 2 of the investment trust property KRW 8.5 billion” with the following content: (a) Industrial Bank of Korea purchased the beneficiary certificates of the said investment trust KRW 3 billion; and (b) KRW 5.5 billion by the Mutual-Aid Association.

(1) Asset management company: Defendant alternatively.

(2) Trust company: One bank.

(3) A selling company of beneficiary certificates: Mez securities.

(4) The investment trust property of 8.5 billion won.

(5) The due date of December 27, 2010

3) Around that time, Defendant Substitute trusted the aggregate of KRW 18.5 billion investment trust property to Han Bank. Han Bank invested 18.5 billion capital to the company established on November 28, 2007, as a company established on November 28, 2007, for the purpose of investing in the business of constructing and operating the ○○○○○ Shipbuilding in the (regional name omitted)-based limited company (the name of the U.S. Plua city), instead of Defendant, in accordance with the direction of the Defendant, and acquired 100% of the company’s equity interest (the △△△△△△△ Investment Team Vice-head is the representative of Nonparty 1) (the investment trust of investment trust property was invested by the limited company specialized in investment).

본문내 포함된 표 ◆ 구 「간접투자자산 운용업법」(2009. 2. 4. 법률 제8635호로 폐지되기 전의 것) ○ 제27조(간접투자기구의 종류) 간접투자기구는 간접투자재산의 운용대상에 따라 다음 각 호와 같이 구분한다. 1. 증권간접투자기구 3. 부동산간접투자기구 7. 그 밖에 대통령령이 정하는 간접투자기구 ◆ 구 「간접투자자산 운용업법 시행령」(2009. 2. 4. 대통령령 제20947호로 폐지되기 전의 것) ○ 제35조(간접투자기구의 종류) ④ 법 제27조 제7호에서 "대통령령이 정하는 간접투자기구"라 함은 제3조 각 호(제1호 및 제8호는 제외한다)의 자산에 주로 투자하는 간접투자기구(이하 "특별자산간접투자기구"라 한다)를 말한다. ○ 제3조(간접투자 대상자산) 법 제2조 제1호 마목에서 "대통령령이 정하는 것"이라 함은 다음 각 호의 어느 하나에 해당하는 것(이와 동일하거나 유사한 것으로서 외국에서 발행 또는 창설되거나 유통되는 것으로서 외국통화로 표시된 것을 포함한다)을 말한다. 1의 2. 사모투자전문회사의 지분

4) Alternative LALC (the △△△△△△ Investment Team Vice Head on behalf of the Defendant) invested the above 18.5 billion won in a company of the United States of America (the △△△△△△△△△) and acquired 100% of the shares of the above company. Dlashin Ravallo US LALC invested the above 16,00,000 US dollars on December 7, 2007 in a region (regional name omitted) in the U.S. Plubya City (hereinafter “○○○ Development Project”). The company of the United States of America, Ravallsort, Inc., Ltd. (the representative of Nonparty 2) acquired 15% of the shares of the above company (No. 12.12).

(b) Establishment under subparagraphs 3 and 4 of the Act on the Special Asset Investment Trust due to Ray Private Offering;

1) On May 16, 2008, the Defendant, instead of the Defendant, set up “Special Asset Investment Trust 3” for the following contents: (a) the beneficiary certificates of the investment trust KRW 10 billion; (b) the Government Employees Management Corporation purchased KRW 5 billion in the beneficiary certificates of the investment trust; and (c) the more K non-life insurance company purchased KRW 4 billion in the amount of KRW 4 billion in the amount of money.

(1) Asset management company: Defendant alternatively.

(2) Trust company: One bank.

(3) A selling company of beneficiary certificates: Nonprofit

(4) The investment trust property of 19 billion won.

(5) The maturity date of May 16, 2011

2) On May 16, 2008, the Defendant, instead of the Defendant, set up “Special Asset Investment Trust No. 4 of the investment trust property of KRW 4 billion” with the following content: (a) Mez securities purchased the beneficiary certificates of the investment trust at KRW 4 billion.

(1) Asset management company: Defendant alternatively.

(2) Trust company: One bank.

(3) A selling company of beneficiary certificates: Nonprofit

(4) The investment trust property of four billion won.

(5) The maturity date of May 16, 2011

3) Around that time, Defendant Substitute trusted KRW 23 billion in the aggregate of the above investment trust property to Han Bank. In accordance with the direction of the Defendant instead of the Defendant, Han Bank invested KRW 1,437,500,000 in the △△△△△△△ Investment Team, instead of the Defendant, KRW 1,437,50,000 in the company’s equity interest, and acquired KRW 21,562,50,000 in the company.

4) On May 16, 2008, Dlashin Rvallo US 2nd LLC invested USD 29,000,000 in the company of the United States in Ravallo Resort LLC and acquired 13% of the shares of the company (Evidence B(7)).

5) In its original plan to set up KRW 32 billion in total as the amount of KRW 32 billion in the △△△△△ Investment Team leader, Nonparty 3 and the vice-head of Nonparty 1, instead of the Defendant, recommended the Plaintiff to make an investment in the said Special Asset Investment Trust on May 2008, upon explaining the instant ○○○○○ Development Project, and providing an explanation on the instant ○○○○○○ Development Project, and issued an investment prospectus (Evidence 1, B, and 5) on the Act on the Special Asset Investment Trust on the Special Assets of Large Ra, Large Ra, which decided to make an investment in the instant ○○○○ Development Project by purchasing KRW 9 billion in the beneficiary certificates of the said Act on the Special Asset Investment Trust of Large Ra, as the National Credit Union Federation under the Credit Unions Act was prohibited from purchasing beneficiary certificates of the securities investment trust or real estate investment trust and purchasing the beneficiary certificates of the special investment trust, and thus, the Plaintiff became unable to purchase KRW 300 million in the aggregate of the beneficiary certificates of KRW 300 billion.

본문내 포함된 표 ◆ 구 「신용협동조합법」(2010. 1. 20. 법률 제13067호로 개정되기 전의 것) ○ 제79조(자금의 운용) ① 중앙회는 제78조 제1항 제5호 가목의 규정에 따라 조합으로부터 수납한 예금·적금 및 상환준비금 등의 자금을 다음 각 호의 1에 해당하는 방법으로 운용하여야 한다. 2. 국채·공채·회사채 그 밖의 유가증권의 매입 ② 제1항 제2호의 규정에 의하여 중앙회가 매입할 수 있는 유가증권의 종류 및 한도는 대통령령으로 정한다. ◆ 구 「신용협동조합법 시행령」(2008. 7. 29. 대통령령 제20947호로 개정되기 전의 것) ③ 법 제79조 제2항의 규정에 의하여 중앙회가 매입할 수 있는 유가증권의 종류는 다음 각 호의 구분에 의한다. 1. 상환준비금으로 매입할 수 있는 유가증권 다. 「간접투자자산 운용업법」 제27조 제1호에 따른 증권간접투자기구의 간접투자증권 (이하 생략) 라. 「간접투자자산 운용업법」 제27조 제5호에 따른 단기금융간접투자기구의 간접투자증권 2. 신용예탁금으로 매입할 수 있는 유가증권 라. 「간접투자자산 운용업법」 제27조 제1호·제3호·제5호 또는 제6호에 따른 간접투자기구의 간접투자증권 (이하 생략) ◆ 구 「간접투자자산 운용업법」(2009. 2. 4. 법률 제8635호로 폐지되기 전의 것) ○ 제27조(간접투자기구의 종류) 간접투자기구는 간접투자재산의 운용대상에 따라 다음 각 호와 같이 구분한다. 1. 증권간접투자기구 3. 부동산간접투자기구 5. 단기금융간접투자기구 6. 재간접투자기구 7. 그 밖에 대통령령이 정하는 간접투자기구

(c) Establishment under subparagraph 5 of the Act on the Special Asset Investment Trust by Ray Private Offering;

1) On May 29, 2008, the Defendant, instead of the Defendant, set up “Special Asset Investment Trust No. 5 of the Investment Trust Property KRW 9 billion with the following content: (a) the Special Asset Investment Trust Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Special Asset Investment Trust”); and (b) an influent institution or individual purchased KRW 9 billion with the beneficiary certificates of the said investment trust.

(1) Asset management company: Defendant alternatively.

(2) Trust company: One bank.

(3) A selling company of beneficiary certificates: Mez securities.

(4) The investment trust property of nine billion won.

(5) The maturity date of May 29, 2011

2) As seen in the following sub-paragraph (d), Defendant Myasset Management Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Myasset”) created the Real Estate Investment Trust Act on June 16, 2008 by 9 billion won of the investment trust property through Mayasset private placement. On the same day, the purchaser of the beneficiary certificates under the Act on Special Asset Investment Trust 5 due to Mayasset private placement, demanded the redemption of the beneficiary certificates, and the Defendant paid the redemption price on the same day on the same day on the same day on the same date on the same date on the same date on the same date on the same date on the grounds that the Plaintiff claimed from the warden (No. 10, No. 27 and No. 28) (the Plaintiff claimed that “the amount of KRW 9 billion of the investment trust property of the Real Estate Investment Trust Act on behalf of the Defendant was used as the beneficiary certificates under the Act on Special Asset Investment Trust 5 due to Mayasset private placement,” and instead, Defendant on March 26, 2014 (the same reply).

본문내 포함된 표 ◆ 구 「간접투자자산 운용업법」(2009. 2. 4. 법률 제8635호로 폐지되기 전의 것) ○ 제62조(환매청구) ① 간접투자자는 언제든지 간접투자증권의 환매를 청구할 수 있다. ② 간접투자자가 간접투자증권의 환매를 청구하고자 하는 경우에는 간접투자증권을 판매한 판매회사에 청구하여야 한다. (단서 생략) ③ 제2항 본문의 규정에 의하여 환매청구를 받은 투자신탁의 판매회사는 자산운용회사에 대하여 (중략) 지체 없이 환매에 응할 것을 요구하여야 한다. ⑤ 제2항 단서·제3항 및 제4항의 규정에 의하여 환매청구를 받거나 환매에 응할 것을 요구받은 투자신탁의 자산운용회사 및 수탁회사는 지체 없이 환매에 응하여야 하고, 투자회사의 자산운용회사 및 자산보관회사는 투자회사에 대하여 지체 없이 환매에 응할 것을 요구하여야 한다. ○ 제63조(환매방법) ① 제62조의 규정에 의하여 간접투자증권을 환매하는 투자신탁의 자산운용회사(수탁회사를 포함한다) 또는 투자회사는 대통령령이 정하는 경우를 제외하고는 환매청구를 받은 날부터 15일 이내에 신탁약관 또는 투자회사의 정관에서 정한 환매일에 간접투자재산의 범위 안에서 간접투자재산으로 보유중인 현금 또는 간접투자재산을 매각하여 조성한 현금으로만 간접투자증권의 환매대금을 지급하여야 한다. (단서 생략)

(d) The creation of the "Real Estate Investment Trust" through the private placement of Romans;

1) As a result of the limitation on investment under the Credit Unions Act, when the Plaintiff was unable to purchase beneficiary certificates of the Act on Special Asset Investment Trust due to the ○○○ Development Project, which was established by the Defendant, for the purpose of investing in the instant ○○○ Development Project, the Plaintiff’s employees Nonparty 4, Nonparty 3 of the △△△△△△△ Investment Team leader, Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 4 of the Defendant, Defendant 5, etc., on June 2008, Defendant Myasset created a real estate investment trust worth KRW 9 billion, the Plaintiff purchased the beneficiary certificates of KRW 8 billion, and Defendant Myasset deposited the said investment trust property into the account of Dashin Rh vallo US US2nd LL, and thereafter, agreed on the management of the investment trust properties by the Defendant instead of the Defendant (Evidence evidence 16, No. 9, and No. 4).

2) On June 16, 2008, Defendant Myasset created the Real Estate Investment Trust Act with the following contents: (a) the Plaintiff purchased each of the beneficiary certificates of the investment trust KRW 8 billion with KRW 1 billion with KRW 8 billion with KRW 1 billion with KRW 1 billion with the beneficiary certificates of the investment trust (hereinafter “instant investment trust”). At the time, Defendant Myasset: (b) was almost identical to the investment prospectus (Evidence No. 1, B, and 5) for the Special Asset Investment Trust with the content of the investment prospectus (Evidence No. 5, B, and 6) for the instant investment trust, which was delivered by Defendant Myasset to the Plaintiff; (c) did not explain the plan or recommend the purchase of the beneficiary certificates of the instant investment trust; and (d) did not designate the Plaintiff as the beneficiary certificates of the instant investment trust, not the Defendant Myasset, but the Plaintiff deposited the said KRW 8 billion with the beneficiary certificates of the instant investment trust with the selling company of the instant investment trust.

(1) Asset management company: Defendant Myasset.

(2) Trust company: One bank.

(3) A company selling beneficiary certificates: A subsidiary securities company, a stock company, or a merz securities (individual investors).

(4) The investment trust property of nine billion won.

(5) The maturity date of June 16, 2011

3) On June 16, 2008, Defendant Myasset entrusted the instant investment trust property KRW 9 billion to Han Bank. On the same day, Han Bank pursuant to Defendant Myasset’s instructions, it shall not be deemed that the instant investment trust falls under the “Real Estate Investment Trust Act,” since, as the first day, Defendant Myasset leased KRW 9 billion to Defendant Myasset-based limited company (the company established on May 19, 2008 for the purpose of real estate development business, etc., and Nonparty 5 is the representative of Defendant Myasset’s head of Mari-si’s head of Mari-si’s headquarters; and Eul lent the instant investment trust property to Texco without investing in the purchase, etc. of real estate, etc. (hereinafter “Texco”); and, as seen in Section 4 below, the instant investment trust cannot be deemed to fall under the “Real Estate Investment Trust”.

4) On June 16, 2008, texco paid KRW 562,50,000,000 to one bank (a trustee company referred to in subparagraphs 3 and 4 of the Act on Special Asset Investment Trust with large Private Equity Ra, holding 100% of the equity interest in Dashin Rvine USUS 2nd LLC), and purchased from one bank 28% of the equity interest in Dashin Rvallo US US 2nd LLC, and (b) lent KRW 8,437,50,000 to Dashina vallo US 2nd LLC (Evidence 3 and 4).

5) Defendant Myasset received 84,600,000 won (i.e., KRW 9 billion x 0.94% per annum) from the instant investment trust property from June 16, 2008 to June 15, 2009, under the name of the operating commission from June 16, 2008 to December 15, 201, and received 42,300,000 won under the name of the operating commission from June 16, 2009 to December 15, 2009 (i.e., KRW 9 billion x 0.94% per annum x 1/2). The operating commission was not paid from December 16, 2009 to June 15, 201.

E. Failure of the instant ○○ Development Project

1) The Ravall Resort Desort LALC, the executing company of the instant ○○ Development Project, obtained a construction loan of USD 183,50,000 from a financial institution, and tried to execute the construction of ○○○ Liber. On September 2008, the U.S. financial crisis occurred, and the said construction was not commenced until June 16, 201, when the maturity date of the instant investment trust was due to the occurrence of the U.S. financial crisis.

2) As seen in paragraph (d)(4) above, KRW 8,437,50,00 of the instant investment trust property KRW 9 billion was leased to Dashin Rov USUS 2nd LLC. On December 16, 2010, Defendant Eashin Ravallo US 2nd LLC was notified of the loss of profits due to the delayed payment of interest on the instant loan. On October 31, 2011, Defendant Eashin Rovallo US 2nd LLC remains at KRW 563,030,860 among the above loans (Evidence No. 26), and the remainder of loans, 7,74,469,140,408,407,30530,0630,000,000 won and more than KRW 563,036,005,00,000.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 20 (including virtual numbers) and Eul evidence 1 to 29 (including virtual numbers), or evidence 1 to 10 (including virtual numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff claims as follows.

1) In preparing an investment prospectus for the instant investment trust as an asset management company of the instant investment trust, the Defendants breached the duty to explain and explain in accordance with Article 56 of the former Indirect Investment Asset Management Business Act and the duty to protect investors at the stage of investment recommendation, and thus, shall compensate the Plaintiff for the damages incurred by the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 760 of the Civil Act.

2) The Defendants, as an asset management company of the instant investment trust, failed to manage the investment trust property with the care of a good manager, thereby violating the duty of due care of a good manager under Article 86 of the former Act on Business of Operating Indirect Investment and Assets and the duty of protecting investors in the stage of asset management of the investment trust. As such, the Defendants shall compensate for the damages suffered by the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 19 (Defendants) or 176 (8) (Defendant Eac) of the former Act

3) Therefore, the Defendants’ respective Plaintiff KRW 6,706,390,866 (i.e., KRW 8,000,000,000 invested by the Plaintiff in the instant investment trust - Dividends 1,293,609,13

4 won and any damages for delay shall be paid.

본문내 포함된 표 ◆ 구 「간접투자자산 운용업법」(2009. 2. 4. 법률 제8635호로 폐지되기 전의 것) ○ 제19조(자산운용회사 등의 책임) ① 자산운용회사가 법령, 투자신탁의 약관(이하 "신탁약관"이라 한다) 또는 투자회사의 정관 및 제56조의 규정에 의한 투자설명서(이하 "투자설명서"라 한다)에 위배되는 행위를 하거나 그 업무를 소홀히 하여 간접투자자에게 손해를 발생시킨 때에는 그 손해를 배상할 책임이 있다. ○ 제56조(투자설명서) ① 투자신탁의 자산운용회사 또는 투자회사(괄호 부분 생략)는 간접투자증권을 발행하는 경우 투자설명서를 작성하고 그 내용이 법령 및 신탁약관 또는 투자회사의 정관의 내용에 부합하는지 여부에 대하여 수탁회사 또는 자산보관회사의 확인을 받아 이를 판매회사에 제공하여야 한다. (후문 생략) ② 판매회사는 투자자에게 간접투자증권의 취득을 권유함에 있어 제1항의 투자설명서를 제공하고 그 주요내용을 설명하여야 한다. ④ 투자신탁의 자산운용회사 또는 투자회사는 투자설명서에 다음 각 호의 사항을 기재하여야 한다. 2. 투자원금이 보장되지 아니한다는 사실 등 투자위험에 관한 사항 ○ 제86조(자산운용회사 등의 선관의무 등) ① 투자신탁의 자산운용회사 및 투자회사는 선량한 관리자의 주의로써 간접투자재산을 관리하여야 하며, 간접투자자의 이익을 보호하여야 한다. ○ 제176조(업무의 위탁 등) ① 자산운용회사 (중략)는 이 법에 따라 허가를 받거나 등록을 한 업무를 제3자에게 위탁할 수 없다. ② 자산운용회사 (중략)는 제1항의 규정에 불구하고 당해 회사의 본질적 업무에 해당하지 아니하거나 간접투자자와 이해상충이 발생할 우려가 없는 업무로서 대통령령이 정하는 업무를 제3자에게 위탁할 수 있다. 이 경우 제3자와 다음 각 호의 사항을 포함하는 위탁계약을 체결하여야 한다. ⑧ 업무를 수탁받은 자가 그 업무를 소홀히 하여 간접투자자에게 손해를 발생시킨 때에는 업무를 위탁한 자가 그 손해를 배상할 책임이 있다. ◆ 구 「간접투자자산 운용업법 시행령」(2009. 2. 4. 대통령령 제20947호로 폐지되기 전의 것) ○ 제164조(업무의 위탁) ① 법 제176조 제2항 각 호외의 부분 전단에서 "대통령령이 정하는 업무"라 함은 다음 각 호의 구분에 따른 각목의 업무 외의 업무를 말한다. 1. 자산운용회사 가. 운용 및 운용지시 업무. (단서 생략) ◆ 「민법」 ○ 제760조(공동불법행위자의 책임) ① 수인이 공동의 불법행위로 타인에게 손해를 가한 때에는 연대하여 그 손해를 배상할 책임이 있다. ③ 교사자나 방조자는 공동행위자로 본다.

B. Determination as to the claim against Defendant Myasset

1) Although Defendant Myasset is an asset management company of the instant investment trust as seen earlier, in full view of the following circumstances, it shall be deemed that Defendant Myasset agreed between the Plaintiff and Defendant Myasset that Defendant Myasset would not actually manage the instant investment trust property, but deposited it into the account of the Plaintiff, Defendant Myasset, and that the duty would be terminated. Unless there was an agreement between Defendant Myasset and Defendant Myasset on the fact that Defendant Myasset would not actually manage the instant investment trust property, it shall not be deemed that the Plaintiff bears the duty to explain the instant investment trust property, the duty to care of good managers, and the duty to protect investors.

① The Plaintiff had information on the instant development project and decided to make an investment in the said project upon receiving an explanation on the instant project and an investment recommendation from the Defendant on behalf of the Plaintiff. On the other hand, Defendant Myasset did not have information on the instant development project and did not make explanation and investment recommendation on the said project to the Plaintiff. However, due to the investment restriction under the Credit Unions Act, the Plaintiff was unable to purchase the beneficiary certificates of the “Special Assets Investment Trust” established on behalf of the Defendant for the instant ○○○○ Development Project, which was not legally invested in the instant ○○○○○ Development Project, and caused Defendant Myasset to acquire the instant investment trust certificates in the form of the instant real estate investment trust (the instant investment trust did not fall under the real estate investment trust, as seen earlier) by setting up the instant investment trust in the form of the instant ○○○○○ Development Project (the instant investment trust did not fall under the instant real estate investment trust) in lieu of the Plaintiff and the instant investment trust (the Plaintiff purchased the instant investment trust certificates in lieu of the Plaintiff’s beneficiary certificates in the form of the instant development project.

② Article 79 of the Credit Unions Act prohibits the National Credit Union Federation of Korea from purchasing beneficiary certificates of special asset investment trusts with funds, such as deposits and installment savings received from credit unions. This means that the National Credit Union Federation of Korea has the purpose of promoting the sound management of the funds by preventing the credit unions and their members from purchasing beneficiary certificates with a large amount of investment risk. Therefore, the Plaintiff shall not purchase beneficiary certificates of the Special Assets Investment Trust for the purpose of investing in ○○○○ Development Project of this case with a large investment risk or make investments in the instant ○○○ Development Project by using other by bypassing the investment restriction under the Credit Unions Act. Nevertheless, the Plaintiff decided to make investments in the instant ○○○○ Development Project in the instant case by excluding investment restriction under the Investment ○○○○○ Development Project, and for this purpose, Defendant Myasset established the instant investment trust in the form of real estate investment trust and made Defendant Myasset to deposit the investment trust properties in the instant development project of this case with Defendant Dhina v. 2 under the former Investment Trust Act.

2) In addition, there is no evidence to acknowledge that Defendant Myasset entrusted Defendant Myasset with the management of the instant investment trust property on behalf of the Defendant.

3) Therefore, without any need to examine the remainder, the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Myasset on the premise that Defendant Myasset bears the duty to explain the instant investment trust, the duty of due care of a good manager, the duty to protect investors, and the duty to protect investors against the Plaintiff, or that the management of the instant investment trust property was entrusted to Defendant on behalf of the Defendant.

C. Determination as to the claim against the defendant substitute

1) In full view of the following circumstances, the Defendant cannot be deemed an asset management company of the instant investment trust, and thus, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to bear the duty to explain the Plaintiff as an asset management company of the instant investment trust, the duty of due care of a good manager, and the duty to protect investors.

① The Defendant may not establish the instant investment trust or issue its beneficiary certificates.

② Even if the Plaintiff decided to make an investment with the explanation of the instant ○○○ Development Project and the recommendation to make an investment therein, and the beneficiary certificates of the instant investment trust were purchased for this purpose, and considerable portion of the instant investment trust property was deposited in the account of the 2nd LLC controlled by the Defendant Substitute, such circumstance alone does not necessarily lead to an asset management company under the former Indirect Investment Asset Management Business Act with respect to the instant investment trust that was not created by the Defendant Substitute.

③ The Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act was enacted by Act No. 8635 on August 3, 2007 and enforced on February 4, 2009. Even if a simple investment solicitor, other than an asset management company of an investment trust, was made after the enforcement of the said Act, if a fiduciary relationship was created between investors through transactions, etc. in the past, it may be deemed that the relevant investor bears an obligation to explain and protect investors at the stage of investment recommendation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da217498, Jan. 29, 2015). However, on May 6, 2008 or around May 2008, the aforementioned Act was enforced, the Defendant did not only encourage the Plaintiff to make an investment in the Special Asset Investment Trust or the instant investment trust, but also did not bear an obligation to explain the relevant investor at the stage of investment recommendation as an investor’s duty to protect investors, etc. as well as at the stage of formation of a fiduciary relationship with the Plaintiff.

2) Therefore, without any reason to consider the remainder of the claims filed by the Plaintiff on behalf of the Defendant on the premise that the Defendant, as an asset management company of the instant investment trust, bears the duty of explanation, good manager’s duty of care, and the duty of investor protection, etc. against the Plaintiff as an asset management company of the instant investment trust, as well as the Plaintiff’s claim on behalf of the Defendant on the premise that the Plaintiff bears the duty of explanation, good manager’s duty of care, and the duty of investor protection, etc. ( even if the Plaintiff’s claim is not an asset management company of the instant investment trust on behalf of the Defendant, if the Plaintiff actively conducted deception in the course of making the

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants should be dismissed in its entirety due to the lack of reasons. Since the part against the defendants in the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendants is unfair with different conclusions, each part is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim against the defendants corresponding to the revoked part is dismissed, and the part against the plaintiff in the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendants is just in conclusion, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jong-chul (Presiding Judge)