Plaintiff 1 and two others (Attorney Ansan-ho, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 201Na1448 delivered on May 1, 201

March 22, 2012

Seoul Eastern District Court Decision 2010Gahap4903 Decided July 8, 2011

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiffs 1 and 2 the amount of KRW 129,600,000 and the amount of KRW 149,000 from December 4, 2009 to December 9, 2009; the amount of KRW 149,090,000 and the amount of KRW 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the court's explanation on this case is as follows, except for the addition of "the fact that a description of the risk of investment in derivatives is posted in the title "essential matters to be observed by a new member of an expert broadcast service" in the column of the public notice of an investment club operated by Defendant 2", and "the reasons for the court's explanation on this case is as stated in the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance", since it is identical to that of the judgment of the court of first instance pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Supplementary Parts]

The Plaintiffs asserted that Defendant Company is jointly and severally liable for damages suffered by the Plaintiffs due to Defendant 2’s failure to perform the duty imposed on the investment advisory business entity under the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, since Defendant Company received fees as its members and provided investment advisory services to its members as 1:1 in return, Defendant 2 provided investment advisory services for a specific issue.

If a quasi-investment advisory business entity engages in an investment advisory business without registration, it is punished in accordance with Article 445 subparag. 1 of the Capital Markets Act, and thereby, causes damage to other persons, it cannot be said that the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act imposes an obligation on an investment advisory business entity to compensate for damage in accordance with the legal principles of illegal acts, if the investment advisory business entity unlawfully engages in an investment advisory business in violation of statutes. The Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is justified, and the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed in its entirety as it is without merit.

Judges highest (Presiding Judge) Lee Jae-ho Kim