1. As to the fourth ground for appeal

Under the former Securities Investment Trust Business Act (amended by Article 2(1) of the Addenda of the Act on Business of Operating Indirect Investment and Assets, which was enacted by Act No. 6987, Oct. 4, 2003; hereinafter the same shall apply), where a trust company of the securities investment trust has entered into a contract with a third party to preserve or increase the value of the trust property while managing the trust property, and thus bearing a debt burden, barring any special circumstance such as granting the right of representation from the trustee company, the contract accompanied by such debt burden cannot be said to be reflected in the profits and losses of the trust property only when it is incorporated into the trust property after it is incorporated into the trust property, and its effect shall not immediately affect the trustee company (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da51334, Feb. 28, 2008).

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the aforementioned legal principles and the record, the instant investment trust mainly aims at investing its trust property in Russia State bonds, etc., and thus, the measures to avoid risk of trust property due to exchange rate fluctuations of foreign currency assets have to be prepared. The instant investment trust agreement is premised on the truster company to conclude a futures exchange contract to avoid exchange rate risk, and thus, Defendant Han Lan Investment Securities Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Hanan Investment Securities Co., Ltd.”) was changed from Puden Social Investment Securities Co., Ltd. to Korea Commercial Investment Securities Co., Ltd. to foreign currency investment securities Co., Ltd. on November 14, 201, as the truster company of the instant investment trust, necessary to conclude the instant gift exchange contract for the instant investment trust while managing its trust property as the truster company of the instant investment trust, and in light of the contents and timing of the instant gift exchange contract, the original of the instant investment trust and the expected return rate, etc. of the instant investment trust, it is reasonable to deem that the instant gift trust agreement was the expenses incurred for the instant trust trust trust trust company.

Although the reasoning of the lower judgment was partially inappropriate, the lower court was justifiable in its conclusion that it was obligated to repay the above expenses with the trust property of the instant investment trust in respect of the Defendant Hansan Bank, a trustee company, to the trust property of the instant investment trust. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the right to claim reimbursement of expenses against the trust company under the former Securities Investment Trust Business Act, or by recognizing facts contrary

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

Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff’s trust company’s inherent account and trust account’s financial status of the instant investment trust agreement on the sole basis of the fact that the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation did not state the right to claim reimbursement of expenses on the balance sheet, which is an internal account book of the Defendant Hannish Investment Securities, and that it was merged with the Korea Asset Management Corporation (hereinafter “Korea Asset Management Corporation”) on September 20, 201, the subsidiary company’s investment trust asset division of the Korea Asset Management Corporation (hereinafter “Korea Asset Management Corporation”) included unpaid expenses related to a gift exchange lawsuit in the debt late, or that it did not violate the principle of good faith or the principle of good faith on the ground that the accounting firm’s loss under the instant investment trust agreement was borne by Defendant Hanish Investment Securities and Puish Social Asset Management (hereinafter “Korea Asset Management Corporation”) on the assumption that Defendant Hanish Investment Securities were borne by Defendant Hanish Investment Securities and the unique account of Puish Social Asset Management, or that the Plaintiff was transferred the pertinent issue assets, such as beneficiary certificates, etc. from Defendant Hanish Investment Securities.

Examining the record in light of the relevant legal principles, the said determination by the lower court is justifiable. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the interpretation of a juristic act, waiver of rights or agreements on non-exercise of rights, the principle of good faith, and the principle of no-deflu

3. As to the third ground for appeal

Upon examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the court below held that Defendant Han Lan Investment Securities has the right to claim reimbursement of expenses against the payment bank that is a trustee company, and rejected the Plaintiff’s claim for restitution of unjust enrichment on the premise that the above right is not established on the Defendant Han Han Investment Securities is justifiable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to omission of judgment

4. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Ko Young-han (Presiding Justice)