2. B

D Corporation

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 by the plaintiffs

A. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court determined as follows: (a) between the Defendant, a stock company with the objective of investment brokerage business, and the Defendant’s head of the FPB team and E, working for the above F branch office around 2005, that E entered into an agreement with the Defendant to guarantee certain profits, such as a bank, by operating the investment entrusted by the Plaintiffs (hereinafter “instant agreement”); and (b) E, under the instant agreement, purchased certain money from the Plaintiffs, and managed the investment money by way of realizing the beneficiary certificates at maturity or transferring and taking over the beneficiary certificates of the fund affiliated with others; and (c) the Plaintiffs’ investment funds from around 2005 to 209 to 2009 to KRW 1,823,709,531,000,000 of the Plaintiff’s total amount of KRW 550,70,000,000 from the Plaintiff’s investment trust’s 1,437,786,786,786, etc.7.

In addition, the court below rejected the plaintiffs' losses on the remaining investment portion (including KB real estate investment portion) except for the large private equity investment, on the premise that the plaintiffs' losses are alleged to be "the defendant should be liable for employers", and rejected it on the ground that it is difficult to view that the plaintiffs' losses have been realized by determining the loss of the remaining value of KB real estate investment held by the plaintiffs.

B. According to the records, on September 13, 2012, at the second date of pleading of the lower court on August 21, 2012, the Plaintiffs seems to have the duty to claim damages equivalent to the total amount deducted from the total amount of damages incurred due to the violation of the duty to protect investors, such as E’s profit security agreement, and the amount of damages that the Plaintiffs suffered due to the violation of the duty to protect investors, such as the Plaintiff’s deposit in the Defendant’s securities account, and the amount of damages that the Plaintiff’s failure to recover, KRW 386,019,136, KRW 96, KRW 397, and KRW 9639, KRW 200, KRW 481, KRW 306, KRW 480, KRW 206, KRW 3814, KRW 206, KRW 380, KRW 481, KRW 204, KRW 7814, KRW 204, KRW 3714, etc. of the Plaintiff’s investment principal.

However, in the above application for amendment, the plaintiffs asserted that the damages equivalent to the total amount of recovery and fixed deposit due to the violation of the duty to protect investors, such as the E’s guarantee agreement, have occurred. The above amount of damages claim includes not only E but all losses arising from E’s investment in the part of other investments. Thus, it is sufficient to view that the plaintiffs seek compensation for total damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to any investment, including the e’s act of private placement, KB real estate investment and other investment parts, on the ground that the solicitation of discretionary investment through the benefit security agreement constitutes a tort against customers due to the lack of the duty to protect customers. If the content of the application for amendment of the above claim is somewhat somewhat unclear, the court below should have clearly confirmed the cause of the plaintiffs’ claim by clearly confirming the cause of the damage.

Nevertheless, the lower court did not decide on whether there was a breach of investor protection duty, and whether there was a loss therefrom, and did not ask the Plaintiffs for an explanation on the cause of the claim, and did not first seek an explanation on the existence of individual damages arising from the violation of the important duty of care in connection with the investment in the investment in the investment in the investment in the private placement, and rejected the damages arising from the investment in the KB real estate solely on the ground that the loss was not confirmed. The lower court dismissed the remainder of the claims for compensation for damages arising from the investment without specifying any reasons. In so doing, the lower court erred by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the cause of the claim, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations. The Plaintiffs’ allegation contained in the grounds of appeal on

Meanwhile, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of the judgment on the ground of claim, such as failure to recover the total amount of investment in violation of the duty to protect investors and damages equivalent to the total amount of lost profit. As long as the judgment of the court below is reversed by accepting the grounds of appeal by the plaintiffs, it is not necessary to determine the validity of the judgment below on the damages caused by the violation of the duty of care related to individual investment. Thus, the part of the judgment below against the plaintiffs

2. Conclusion

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-deok

The Chief Justice Park Jae-young

Justices Kim Gin-young