The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning, the lower court deemed that the Plaintiff agreed on both the previous C’s tort and the Defendant’s breach of duty of care at the time of the instant agreement, and determined that it was difficult to view that the instant agreement was made only against C’s tort, as alleged by the Plaintiff.

Examining the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the scope of validity of the instant agreement, omitting judgment, or violating the rules of evidence, etc., thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, the lower court determined that there was no evidence to support the fact that the Plaintiff, at the time of the instant agreement, induced the Plaintiff by failing to perform the duty of disclosure.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the record, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the burden of proof or by adversely affecting the judgment.

3. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 3, 4, and 5, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning, the lower court: (a) on the grounds that the Defendant did not initiate any legal procedure for receiving unpaid charterage, etc. against F Co., Ltd. after the instant agreement; (b) however, on the ground that the Defendant’s plan to remodel and sell the instant vessel was not brought about any benefit to the Fund as a result of continuous decline in the value of the instant vessel after the initial maturity of the instant fund; (c) contrary to the originally anticipated prospects, the Defendant cannot be found to have violated the duty to protect investors; and (d) the Defendant’s selection of X Co., Ltd., Ltd., which did not have a domestic cargo transport business license

(b) if any;