2. The total costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 3,617,687,538 won with 7.66% per annum from July 29, 200 to the date of the first instance judgment, and 25% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.

2. Purport of appeal

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff against the defendant shall be revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1,177,33,610 won with 6% per annum from July 29, 200 to the date of a final judgment, and 25% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

Defendant: The part against Defendant in the judgment of the first instance court is revoked, and the Plaintiff’s claim corresponding to the revocation part is dismissed.

A. Defendant (mutual name was changed to Korea Light Investment Trust Operation Co., Ltd.) is a company established under the former Securities Investment Trust Business Act (amended by Act No. 6987, Oct. 4, 2003; hereinafter the same shall apply) for the purpose of operating a securities investment trust, and issued beneficiary certificates by establishing Korea Light Heavy Bonds Investment Trust No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the “New-Term Fund No. 1”) and Korea Light Medium-Term Bonds Investment Trust No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the “Long-Term Fund”) for the purpose of operating a securities investment trust, etc., and the Plaintiff is an investor who purchased the above mid-term Fund No. 1 and the long-term Fund No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the “Large-Term Fund”) under a consignment contract with Defendant. The Plaintiff is a company in charge of selling the above-term Fund No. 1 and the Securities Investment Trust No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the “ Samsung Securities”) under a consignment contract with Defendant.

B. Samsung Securities: (a) on May 199, 199, the Defendant solicited the Plaintiff to purchase B&B securities of the above mid-term fund No. 1 and long-term No. 1, which were initially established and sold as bond-type and market value appraisal; (b) on May 13, 1999, the Fund No. 1 stated the contents of “Korea Light Heavy Bond Investment Trust Operation Plan (Evidence No. 2-1)” provided by the Defendant to the Plaintiff; (c) on the basis of the maximum-term period of investment 1 funds, the remainder was written in the documents issued. under the title of the product outline, the acquisition ratio of the bonds is more than 50%; (d) the investment rate is more than 9% higher than that of the K&B funds, and (e) the investment rate is more than 9% higher than that of the K&B funds, and (e) the investment rate is more than 9% higher than that of the public bonds, and (e) the investment rate is expected to be more than that of 9-7% bonds.g.

C. Meanwhile, Article 20 of the terms and conditions applicable to each of the above funds is under the title of the management of investment trust property, and the management company shall invest and manage the investment trust property in bonds, liquidity assets, beneficiary certificates, derivatives, etc., and it is limited to investing the investment trust property in privately placed bonds at least Grade A. In the case of privately placed bonds, there is no provision that restrictions under the credit rating shall be placed on other investment products, and there is no provision in other provisions.

D. On May 20, 199, the Plaintiff purchased 19,997,000,450 shares of the mid-term 1 fund (180 days from May 20, 199 to November 16, 199) established by the Defendant on May 20, 199, and paid 20 billion won to Samsung Securities (20 billion won) on the same day. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 19997, May 20, 199; Presidential Decree No. 17450, Jun. 14, 1999; Presidential Decree No. 20 billion won of the beneficiary certificates of a long-term 1 fund (2 billion won of the fund; Presidential Decree No. 1 year of operation) established by the Defendant on May 20, 199; Presidential Decree No. 20 billion won of the beneficiary certificates of Samsung Securities.

E. Afterwards, while managing the mid-term 1 fund and the long-term 1 fund, the Defendant did not incorporate the corporate papers of Daewoo Group’s affiliates into each of the above funds. However, on July 15, 199, the said mid-term 1 fund was incorporated into the said funds. However, on July 15, 199, the amount equivalent to 2,967,780,821 won, 1,873,567,609 won, 1,877,609 won, 1,971,79, 795 won, 96,57,500,000,000 won, 1,975,000 won, 2,000,000 won, 197,000 won, 197,000 won, which was then incorporated into the said funds (the 97,000,000 won, 197,000 won).

F. Meanwhile, the market situation, credit rating, etc. related to the affiliated companies of the Treatment Group before and after the time of the above incorporation are as follows:

(1) On April 16, 1999, the Treatment Group announced a self-rescue plan to sell assets to 10 trillion won and procure funds. On April 19, 1999, the president of the Treatment Group Kim Woo announced the treatment Group’s restructuring plan, including an excessive sales plan.

(2) On April 20, 199, the government and the bond group announced on April 20, 199 that they sought to convert loans to investment.

(3) The financial status of the Treatment Group sharply aggravated from April 1999, and the credit rating for the commercial papers of its affiliated companies was adjusted by the Credit Assessment Specialized Agency. Treatment Co., Ltd. was adjusted to B from May 4, 199 to Grade A3-B on May 4, 199, the Daewoo Motor Sales was at Category A3-B on May 31, 199, the Treatment Heavy Industries was at Category B + B on May 21, 1999, the Treatment Heavy Industries was at Grade A3-B on May 21, 199, and the installment financing was adjusted to B + B on May 31, 1999.

(4) On July 19, 199, the Treatment Group requested the Treatment Group for the extension of the maturity of initial credit (CP) and the provision of new liquidity funds by providing assets of the total amount of KRW 10.134.5 billion, including the shares owned by the president and real estate of KRW 30.30.5 billion, and the shares owned by affiliate companies and real estate of KRW 8.834.4 billion, in order to overcome the financial crisis. Accordingly, the claim group of the Treatment Group requested the Treatment Group for the extension of the short-term maturity of initial credit (CP) and the extension of new liquidity funds. On the other hand, the claim group of the Treatment Group decided the short-term maturity of KRW 11,00, such as commercial papers and corporate bonds, to extend the short-term maturity of six months.

(5) Along with the increase in the redemption of investment trust products, financial markets have been extremely unstable since July 23, 199, with the increase in the number of investors in the possibility of recovering the claim of the treatment group.

(6) As the withdrawals of investment trust products included in the claim of the Treatment Group have increased rapidly due to the financial difficulties of the Treatment Group, on August 12, 1999, the Investment Trust Association and the Korea Securities Dealers Association prepared a "measures to repurchase beneficiary certificates of investment trust companies and securities companies" which restrict the redemption of the claim of the Treatment Group in the form of self-resolution with the approval of the Financial Supervisory Commission for the stabilization of financial markets, and enforced from August 13, 199

G. The Plaintiff did not redeem beneficiary certificates for the corporate bills included in the mid-term Fund No. 1 and the Funds No. 1 and the Long-term Fund No. 1 according to the measures to postpone redemption of beneficiary certificates that restrict redemption of the claim of the Treatment Group on August 12, 1999. After November 16, 1999, the mid-term Fund No. 1 and June 14, 2000, which is the maturity date of the Fund No. 1 and June 28, 2000, the mid-term Fund No. 1 were repaid as KRW 2,582,648,122, and the long-term Fund No. 1,348,045,90 with respect to the Fund No. 3,930,694,022.

[Ground for recognition: Facts without dispute; Gap evidence 1 through 6; Eul evidence 4-1 through 7; Eul evidence 5 through 7; 14; Eul evidence 20-1 through 5; Eul evidence 22; Eul evidence 1 and 22; Eul evidence 4-1 through 15; Eul evidence 7, 8, Eul evidence 15; Eul's evidence 1, 9, 10, 11; Eul evidence 12, 13-1 through 3; Eul evidence 25-1 through 4; Eul evidence 27, 28, 29; Eul evidence 29; Eul's testimony and evaluation results; Eul's testimony and evaluation results; Eul's testimony and evaluation results; Eul's testimony and evaluation results; Eul's testimony and evaluation results; Eul's testimony and evaluation results; Eul's testimony and evaluation results; Eul's testimony and evaluation results; Eul's testimony and evaluation results; Eul's testimony and evaluation results; and Eul's testimony and evaluation results; and

2. Assertion and determination

The plaintiff asserts the following various causes of claims, and the defendant sought compensation for damages for the act of incorporating the instant corporate bills into each of the above funds. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion and its judgment are examined in turn as follows.

(a) The assertion that the investment trust management plan has binding force;

(1) Contents of the assertion

The management plan of the investment trust (hereinafter referred to as the “management plan of this case”) prepared and delivered by the Defendant to the Plaintiff through the selling company was an individual agreement between the parties supplement and embodying the contents of the terms and conditions, and thus, the Plaintiff and the Defendant have binding force at the Plaintiff and the Defendant. According to the management plan, although the above management plan limited to the case of commercial papers subject to investment at least A3-class in the course of managing each of the funds of this case, although the credit rating was limited to the case of those commercial papers subject to investment at least A3-class, the commercial papers of this case were acquired and transferred to the Fund, and accordingly, they violated the above agreement, and thus, they are liable

(2) Determination

However, according to the above evidence, the management plan of this case is acknowledged to be used as reference material for investor recruitment. It is not clear that the contents of the plan are only corporate bonds and commercial papers of a certain class or higher, but it is shown that the expected return rate at the time of preparation is to be incorporated into corporate bonds and commercial papers of a certain class or higher as the basis for calculation of the expected return rate. In light of the above purpose of preparation, name, form, and content, the plan of this case can only be used as reference material for investment solicitation. Thus, even if it was delivered to the plaintiff who is the beneficiary through Samsung Securities, it cannot be deemed that the contents of the individual agreement between the defendant and the beneficiary, and it cannot be viewed that it has binding force on the defendant. Accordingly, there is no evidence to acknowledge that such individual agreement was concluded between the defendant and the plaintiff.

B. The assertion of deception

(1) Contents of the assertion

The Defendant did not deliver only the above management plan to the Plaintiff and provide the terms and conditions or the investment trust manual provided to investors under the former Securities Investment Trust Business Act, and instead, by deceiving the Plaintiff as if it were to manage the trust property by incorporating only commercial papers of a certain class or more into the trust property as stated in the above management plan, or at least by deceiving the Plaintiff, who was not the head of the bond management team, the Plaintiff. Thus, the Defendant is liable for tort not attributable to or difference from his own tort. Furthermore, even if the Defendant did not deliver the terms and conditions or the investment prospectus, but did not deliver only the management plan, and the Plaintiff believed that the trust property will be managed as stated in the above management plan, while the Plaintiff was entirely aware of the terms and conditions or the investment prospectus, and thus, the Defendant violated the duty to protect investors at the stage of entering into an investment under the above Act, and thus

(2) Determination

As seen earlier, the above management plan is a single fake document prepared in the name of the Defendant’s head of the bond management team, rather than the name of the Defendant’s bond management team, to be used as reference material for investor solicitation. It does not expressly state that the contents of the plan are limited to corporate bonds and commercial papers above a certain level, but merely presents an expected return rate at the time of preparation, and explain that the plan should be incorporated into corporate bonds and commercial papers above a certain level as a basis for calculating such anticipated return. Considering the purpose, form, and content of the plan, the principle of the above management plan is premised on the possibility of changing the plan due to changes in economic situation. Thus, even if the Defendant delivered the plan to the Plaintiff through the distributor, it is difficult to view such act as a deception of the Defendant or the public official, even if it did not deliver the terms and conditions and specifications of the fund of this case to the Plaintiff, it is difficult to find that the Defendant did not know the content or content of the plan of this case’s investment trust or loan management plan, and thus, it is difficult to recognize the existence of the agreement or content of the fund.

C. Claim of breach of fiduciary duty

(1) Contents of the assertion

Since the end of 1998, the credit rating of the published commercial papers of the treatment affiliate company has continuously declineded to a below-class A3-grade level during May 1999, and continuously aggravated the financial standing of the treatment affiliate company, and the defendant had known about the information on the financial background equivalent to the failure of the Treatment Group's repayment in the investment site at the center of experts around July 15, 1999 when the funds of the Treatment affiliate were incorporated into each of the instant commercial papers. Since the defendant had known that it was highly probable that the instant commercial papers issued by the treatment affiliate company could not be paid at maturity, it violated the fiduciary duty for the protection of the beneficiary of the truster company, and thus, is liable to compensate for damages therefrom.

(2) Determination

Article 17 (1) of the Securities Investment Trust Business Act provides that "a truster company shall be responsible for the management of the trust property as a good manager, and shall protect the beneficiaries' interests." In the case of an investment trust which is an indirect investment method, a truster company shall have a certain operating discretion, except in a case where there is a violation of Acts and subordinate statutes, terms and conditions, etc. or where there is a substantial negligence in the course of the investment judgment, the truster company

In the instant case, as seen earlier, the Defendant ought to be deemed to have known the circumstances that the Treatment Group had experienced many difficulties due to aggravation of financial resources since the end of 1998. However, since the Treatment Group continued to engage in the restructuring attempt under its own name, it is difficult to conclude that the Defendant could have predicted or predicted such commercial papers to be insolvent in a short period on July 15, 199 and July 16, 199 at the time of incorporation of the Treatment Group into each of the instant commercial papers into the Fund, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise. It was relatively anticipated that, as at the time, it is difficult to expect that a business group with a large portion of the national economy as at the time, such as the Treatment Group, was not insolvent, and because the maturity of commercial papers is short of 1 and 2 months, it is difficult to expect that the Treatment Group had the ability to repay the said commercial papers within a short period of time, and it is also difficult to expect that it has the ability to redeem the said grade B as at the time of incorporation into the foregoing.

Of course, after July 19, 199 when the Treatment Group requested emergency financial assistance to the claim group, the reason was that the Treatment Group faces extreme liquidity crisis due to the aggravation of financial standing, and neglected it, it would eventually result in the bankruptcy procedure. Therefore, the act of incorporating treatment affiliated companies' commercial papers into trust property after July 19, 199 can be deemed as the act of violating the fiduciary duty.

In the instant case, as seen earlier, the time when the Defendant incorporated the instant case’s corporate bills into the fund is all prior to July 19, 199, and as of July 28, 199, the incorporation of Daewoo Motor Sales Co., Ltd.’s corporate bills into the fund of No. 1 mid-term 1, 1999 is not a new incorporation on the same day, but a new incorporation on the same day, and as of April 28, 199, the maturity of the incorporation was extended under the agreement of the entire bond group as a member of the bond group upon the arrival of July 28, 1999, all of them do not constitute a breach of fiduciary duty (this conclusion is deemed justifiable in Supreme Court Decision 2002Da63572 Decided February 27, 2004, which is a similar case).

D. The assertion that they are illegal bicycles

(1) Contents of the assertion

Article 33(1)7 of the above Act prohibits trading of securities, etc. which would harm a specific trust property’s interest, thereby seeking another trust property’s interest. In the instant case, the Defendant included approximately KRW 2.9 billion from a short-term fund that it operated with 1st fund, and included approximately KRW 2.9 billion from a new MMF s-1 fund into approximately KRW 2 billion. In order to respond to the beneficiary’s demand for redemption from another trust property, this is an illegal incorporation of 1st fund in treatment-related corporate bills, instead of withdrawing the superior bond from the fund. Accordingly, the Defendant is liable to compensate for damages caused by breach of the above legal provisions.

(2) Determination

First of all, as seen earlier, the amount equivalent to KRW 1,873,567,609 of the corporate bills of the Daewoo Motor Vehicle Sales Co., Ltd., Ltd., which was incorporated into the light short-term fund of KRW 33 on July 15, 1999, and the amount equivalent to KRW 1,971,791,775 on July 16, 199, was incorporated into the MMF s-1 (However, as alleged by the plaintiff, the amount equivalent to KRW 996,515,068 of the corporate bills of the Daewoo Motor Vehicle Sales Co., Ltd., Ltd., which was not incorporated into the light short-term fund of KRW 996,515,068, not incorporated into the light-term fund of KRW 3 as of April 28, 199, is extended at the expiration of the maturity on July 28, 199). Defendant also does not dispute the fact that the said funds was incorporated into the money for redemption.

However, the mere fact that part of the corporate bills of this case were incorporated into the fund of this case for the purpose of raising the redemption price of other funds cannot be deemed as an illegal bicycle race prohibited under the above provision of this Act. In order to constitute a prohibited act under the above provision of this Act, it shall be recognized that the defendant incorporated the corporate bills of this case into the fund of this case even though it was impossible or extremely difficult for the defendant to dispose of, liquidate in the market, or liquidate in difficult way, thereby impairing the plaintiff's interest, which is the beneficiary of the fund of this case and promoting the benefit of the beneficiary of other funds. Thus, the above assertion

E. 10% Limitation Claim

(1) Contents of the assertion

Article 33(1)1 of the above Act prohibits “an act of investing in securities, etc. of the same issue in excess of the ratio prescribed by the Presidential Decree within the limit of 10/100 of the total assets of the trust property (the ratio prescribed by the Presidential Decree shall be 10/100).” The defendant is liable to compensate for damages arising therefrom since the defendant incorporated the commercial papers of the Treatment Group as of July 16, 1999, when the total assets of the fund of Korea Light Light Light Light Light Light Light Light Light Group 1 were approximately KRW 7.9 billion, even though the total assets of the fund of KRW 19,988,00,000,000, even if the total assets of the fund of KRW 19,988,000,000,000, as of July 16, 1999.

(2) Determination

The term "securities, etc. of the same issue" which is prohibited from investment under the above provision refers to securities, etc. issued by the same company. Considering the total assets size of each of the funds of this case and the incorporation amount of the corporate bills of this case as seen earlier, the above assertion is rejected on the grounds that the corporate bills of the Treatment Department, incorporated into the fund of this case No. 1 of this case, are about 6.5% of the treatment issue amount, about 6.18% of the treatment issue amount, about 3.29% of the treatment-based (ju), about 9.79% of the treatment-based (ju), about the issuance amount of the treatment-based capital (ju), about 9.86% of the treatment-based industry incorporated into the fund of 1 of this case, and it is merely about 9.86% of the total assets amount and about 10% of the total amount incorporated into the fund of this case.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's selective claims in this case are without merit, and they are dismissed. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with some different conclusions, the part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance which accepted the defendant's appeal and dismissed the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part.

Judges Yuwon rules (Presiding Judge)