[1] Whether a dealer under the former Indirect Investment Asset Management Business Act may be deemed to have fulfilled its duty to protect investors solely on the ground that it believed that the content of sales auxiliary materials provided by an asset management company is accurate and sufficient while soliciting investors to acquire beneficiary certificates, and provided an explanation on investment trust based on such belief (negative)

[2] Whether an asset management company under the former Indirect Investment Asset Management Business Act may be deemed to have fulfilled its duty to protect investors on the sole basis of the fact that the asset management company provided sales auxiliary materials, etc., including indications that may mislead the company about important matters, other than the investment prospectus, to the sales company and investors, and that the sales auxiliary materials, etc., which affected investors' investment decisions, contain information faithful to the investment

[3] The case holding that in a case where an asset management company and a distributor should compensate for damages suffered by investors due to their joint tort in a case where the company and the distributor are liable for damages caused by the purchase of the fund, in accordance with the information provided by the asset management company, by issuing beneficiary certificates of the fund that most of the trust assets in the over-the-counter derivatives with a significant risk of the asset management company, using information that may cause misunderstanding about important matters in sales assistance data, such as advertising paper and KUA data, or by offering information that may lose balance as to the profits and risks of investment trust, and the distributor actively solicits investors to subscribe to the fund in accordance with the information provided

[4] In a case where an asset management company that issued the beneficiary certificates of an fund investing in over-the-counter derivatives and an investor who sold them violated their duty to protect investors by failing to explain the risks to investors, etc., and thereby causing losses to the fund, the case holding that the investor’s losses occurred at the maturity point or at the actual redemption point, and that there exists a causal relation between the harmful act such as the asset management company, etc. and the losses accrued until that point

[5] In a case where the issue is whether a final profit received by investors can be viewed as a profit to be deducted after offsetting the amount of loss incurred by an asset management company that issued the beneficiary certificates of the fund that invested in over-the-counter derivatives and a seller that sold such securities, the case holding that the final profit cannot be viewed as a profit to be deducted based on the amount of comparative negligence or limitation of liability calculated without considering the fact that it constitutes an element of calculating the amount of loss of investors before offsetting the amount of loss

[6] The method of assessing the victim's negligence in a case where the ratio of negligence to each joint tortfeasor is different in the comparative negligence as to joint tort liability

[7] The initial date of the occurrence of damages for damages due to a tort where there is time difference between the time of the illegal act and the time of the damage occurrence (=the time of damage occurrence)

[1] A dealer under the former Indirect Investment Asset Management Business Act (repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda to the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, Act No. 8635, Aug. 3, 2007; hereinafter “Indirect Investment Act”) shall invite investors to acquire beneficiary certificates for the sale of beneficiary certificates, provide investors with investment prospectus provided to an asset management company for the purpose of selling beneficiary certificates, explain major contents of the investment prospectus. In addition, the dealer is obligated to comply with the terms and conditions for indirect investment, such as the characteristics of performance dividends and possibility of loss of principal, and the duty to not give sufficient and accurate notice of the investment risks, such as the duty to ensure that the investor is not able to understand the contents of the investment prospectus provided by the asset management company, and that the meaning of the investment prospectus is unclear and clear, and that it can only be understood that the content of the investment plan or investment plan, profit-making method, and investment trust data provided by the asset management company are accurate and balanced.

[2] An asset management company under the former Indirect Investment Asset Management Business Act (repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda to the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, Act No. 8635, Aug. 3, 2007) provides correct information about the profit structure and risk factors of investment trust to a distributor or investor so that investors can make reasonable investment decisions based on information, and thus, bears the duty of care to protect investors. Information provided in the course of sales of beneficiary certificates by an asset management company is basically the content of investment prospectus. However, in a case where an asset management company provides and delivers to a distributor and investors by preparing directly a sales auxiliary material or an advertisement that provides and communicates the characteristics of an investment prospectus other than an investment prospectus, the sales auxiliary material or advertisement included information that may cause misunderstanding about important matters to investors, or a balance between the profit and risk of an investment trust. If it affects investors' judgment in the course of sales of beneficiary certificates by an asset management company, it cannot be deemed that the asset management company has the duty to protect investors merely because it included information provided to a distributor.

[3] The case holding that in a case where an asset management company and an investor of over-the-counter derivatives issued beneficiary certificates of a fund that invests most of trust assets in over-the-counter derivatives with a significant risk of an asset management company and received documents to the company operating over-the-counter derivatives, stating that “this product is appropriate only for investors with extensive knowledge of and experience in finance and management issues necessary to assess the risk of investment in over-the-counter derivatives, who are capable of undermining the total amount of investment risk, but the foreign credit rating agency excessively emphasized only the meaning of granting the credit rating A3, which is eligible to invest in over-the-counter derivatives, and it used an indication that may cause misunderstanding of important matters, such as directly comparing the over-the-counter derivatives, the National Treasury bonds of the Republic of Korea, the subordinated bonds of commercial banks, etc., or provided information that lose balance between the profits and risks of investment trust, and the distributor actively recommended investors to subscribe to the fund without accurately recognizing the risk of investors' participation in the fund, the asset management company and the distributor shall compensate for damages caused by their joint tort.

[4] The case holding that in case where an asset management company that issued beneficiary certificates of an investment in over-the-counter derivatives and an investor who sold them violated the duty to protect investors by failing to explain the risks to investors, and thereby causing damages to the fund, the case held that the damage suffered by investors due to the violation of the duty to protect investors by an asset management company and a distributor is the total amount of investments that could not be recovered by joining the fund and the profit that could not be gained from the future, and that the investor's investment decision due to the violation of the duty to protect investors was based on the premise that the investor's investment decision was held at maturity, in principle, on the condition that the investor has a right to choose to redeem beneficiary certificates before maturity, and the fund is granted quarterly final settlement profit until maturity and it is difficult to estimate in advance the amount that can be recovered until maturity as a structure with a change in the base price, the damage suffered by investors due to the tort by the asset management company and the distributor occurred at maturity or at the actual time of redemption, and the damage suffered by the investor at that time constitutes a harmful act by the asset management company and the distributor

[5] In a case where the issue is whether a final profit received by investors can be viewed as a profit that should be deducted after offsetting the amount of loss, in calculating the amount of loss suffered by an asset management company that issued the beneficiary certificates of the fund that invested in over-the-counter derivatives and investors who subscribed to the fund due to a violation of the duty to protect investors, the case holding that the final profit received by investors constitutes an element of calculating the amount of loss before offsetting the amount of loss, and it cannot be viewed as a profit that should be deducted again on the basis of the amount of loss calculated without considering

[6] The establishment of a joint tort does not require the common intent or common recognition among the joint tortfeasors, and there is sufficient common sense of existence of objective acts related to each act, so if damages were incurred by the related joint tort, liability cannot be exempted. The joint tort liability is not individually seeking damages from each act of an individual of the tortfeasor, but pursuing liability for a tort jointly committed by the tortfeasor. Thus, if the court offsets the negligence on the part of the victim, even if the ratio of negligence against each joint tortfeasor differs, the victim's negligence shall not be individually assessed against each joint tortfeasor, but shall be assessed as a whole by the negligence against all of them.

[7] If there is a time interval between the time point of the illegal act and the time of the damage occurrence, damages for damages due to the illegal act shall be the initial date of the damage occurrence.

[1] Articles 19, 26, 56(2), and 57(1) of the former Indirect Investment Asset Management Business Act (repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda to the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, Act No. 8635 of Aug. 3, 2007), Article 750 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 4, 19, and 56(1) of the former Indirect Investment Asset Management Business Act (repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda to the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, Act No. 8635 of Aug. 3, 2007), Article 750 of the Civil Act / [3] Article 760 of the Civil Act / [4] Articles 393, 750, and 763 of the Civil Act / [5] Articles 396, 760, 750, and 763 of the Civil Act / [6] Articles 396, 760, 739 of the Civil Act

[2] Supreme Court Decision 2004Da53197 decided Sep. 6, 2007 (Gong2007Ha, 1521) / [6] Supreme Court Decision 2005Da32999 decided Jun. 14, 2007 (Gong2007Ha, 1045)

Plaintiff 1 and six others

tin-dong Saemaul Savings Depository (Law Firm Hannuri, Attorneys Kim Sang-won et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea Asset Management Co., Ltd. and one other (Law Firm Sejong & one other, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2009Na87876 decided August 12, 2010

The part of the judgment of the court below against the same plaintiffs as to the conjunctive claims of plaintiffs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, the part against the defendants as to the conjunctive claims of plaintiffs 1, 2, 2, 3, 4, and 6, the part of the damages for delay, and the part against the defendant Gyeongnam Bank as to the conjunctive claims of plaintiffs 5, 7, shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court. The appeal by the plaintiff 1, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, and all remaining appeals by the defendants shall be dismissed. The costs of the appeal by the plaintiff 1, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7

1. The appeal against the plaintiffs' primary claim is examined.

The plaintiffs filed an appeal against the main claim of the judgment below. However, there is no indication of the grounds for appeal in the petition of appeal nor any statement of the grounds for appeal as to the grounds for appeal.

2. The defendants' grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

A. As to the ground of appeal Nos. 1, 2, and 3 of the Defendant Korea Asset Management Company and the ground of appeal Nos. 1, 3, and 2 of the Defendant Gyeongnam Bank's Bank

(1) A dealer stipulated in the former Indirect Investment Asset Management Business Act (amended by Act No. 8635 of Aug. 3, 2007 and enforced as of Feb. 4, 2009; hereinafter “Indirect Investment Act”) is not merely an asset management company’s agent but also an investor’s position of recommending investors to make investments in his/her own name and selling beneficiary certificates in the investor’s position. In cases where such a dealer interferes with an ordinary investor lacking experience in trading, or causes damage to investors by actively soliciting transactions with excessive risk, in light of the customer’s investment situation, it is sufficient and clear that the dealer is liable to compensate for losses caused by the tort, and that the dealer is not obliged to explain the substance of the investment prospectus’s duty to provide the investor with accurate explanation about the investment risk, such as investment prospectus’s provision and explanation of the investment prospectus’s major contents to the investor, and that the investor is not obliged to explain the investment prospectus’s investment risk’s duty to the investor, such as an asset management company’s duty to provide the investor with accurate explanation about the investment risk.

In addition, an asset management company provided for in the Indirect Investment Act is in a position of producing and distributing information about investment trusts as the establisher and operator of investment trust, as well as a direct interest in the sales of beneficiary certificates even in a case where the asset management company does not directly take charge of the sales of beneficiary certificates. Such asset management company is obligated to protect investors by providing correct information about the profit structure and risk factors of investment trust so that investors can make reasonable investment decisions based on such information (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da53197, Sept. 6, 2007). Information provided by an asset management company in the course of sales of beneficiary certificates is basically a content of investment prospectus. However, in a case where the asset management company directly prepares and delivers and delivers sales auxiliary materials that assist investors in understanding the contents of investment prospectus in addition to investment prospectus or advertisements that inform the characteristics of the investment trust, such sales auxiliary materials or advertisements included information that could mislead investors about important matters, or information about profits and risks of investment trusts, and as a result, the asset management company provided the asset management company with such information in the course of investment judgment.

(2) The reasoning of the lower judgment and the evidence duly admitted by the lower court reveal the following.

(1) No. 1 of this case is an investment trust with the maturity of 11.11.22, 201 maturity of 5 OTC derivatives with the maturity of 1.5 OTC derivatives with the maturity of 15.1.0% of the total amount of 6 OTC derivatives plus 1.0% of the total amount of 5 OTC derivatives with the maturity of 1.0% of the total amount of 1.0% of the total amount of 5 OTC derivatives with the maturity of 1.0% of the total amount of 6 OTC derivatives with the underlying assets of 1.0% of the total amount of 1.0% of the total amount of 5 OTC derivatives with the maturity of 1.0% of the total amount of 1.0% of the total amount of 10 OTC derivatives with the maturity of 1.0% of the total amount of 1.0% of the total amount of 10% of the net assets of this case and the amount of 10% of the quarterly redemption principal of the Fund.

(2) No. 2 of this case is an investment trust of over-the-counter derivatives with the maturity of 12.28 December 205 and with the maturity of 26.201, most of the trust assets is linked to the revenue structure of over-the-counter derivatives No. 2 of this case because it invests in the OTC derivatives No. 2 of this case. 2 of this case. OTC derivatives No. 2 of this case are no less than 112 of the prices of overseas specific stocks of No. 112 of this case as underlying assets of No. 2 of this case. 2 of this case, the net debt redemption securities issued in the order of losses by deducting the quarterly revenue of the OTC derivatives No. 2 of this case from 3 of this case and the annual redemption rate of No. 2 of the principal of the investment bond No. 2 of this case from 6 of this case from 000 to 10% of the annual redemption principal of the investment bond No. 2 of this case. 2 of this case.

③ Investors who subscribed to each of the instant OTC derivatives may claim redemption of beneficiary certificates to the selling company even before maturity. The repurchase price shall be calculated based on the base price publicly announced by Defendant Korea Asset Management Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Korea”) on the 14 business days (15 business days in the event of a request for redemption after lapse of 17 cc) from the date of the request for the claim for redemption, and redemption fees shall be deducted from the amount. The base price of each of the instant OTC derivatives is calculated based on reflecting the assessed price of each of the instant OTC derivatives. The price of each of the instant OTC derivatives is calculated based on reflecting the assessed price of each of the instant OTC derivatives. The price of each of the instant OTC derivatives is assessed and calculated by the Committee taking into account the presentation price offered by reflecting various factors, such as the level of share price, fluctuation, and correlation in the items belonging to the Poolio.

④ Defendant Korea’s management, as an asset management company under the Indirect Investment Act, created each of the instant investment securities and issued the instant beneficiary certificates, and Defendant Chungcheongnam-Nam Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Chungcheongnam-Nam Bank”) sold the beneficiary certificates of the instant fund to investors as a dealer under the Indirect Investment Act. around November 11, 2005, Plaintiff 1, 4, 5, 6, and 7 purchased the beneficiary certificates of the instant fund No. 1 from Defendant Chungcheongnam-Nam Bank, and Plaintiff 2, and 3 purchased the beneficiary certificates of the instant fund No. 2 from Defendant Chungcheongnam-Nam Bank on December 28, 2005, respectively, and received the price of the instant fund among the beneficiary certificates of the instant fund each of the instant case before the closing date of the argument in the lower court. Plaintiff 1 Dong-dong Bank purchased the beneficiary certificates of the instant case and received the price of the instant fund no later than the closing date of argument in the instant quarterly. Plaintiff 28, 2005.

⑤ With respect to each over-the-counter derivatives of this case, credit rating of A3 was obtained from Mody’s credit rating, which is a credit rating company at the time of its issuance. The credit rating of each of the over-the-counter derivatives of this case is not to evaluate the issuer’s ability to pay principal and interest, but to evaluate the possibility of payment of principal and interest by integrating cash flow according to the profit structure of the bonds, the credit rating of the issuing institution’s participating in the issuance, and the scenario of stock price fluctuation as statistical techniques. There is no special mention in the investment prospectus of this case as to the fact that each of the over-the-counter derivatives of this case received A3 credit rating from Mody from Mody. Each of the instant OTC derivatives of this case was prepared and distributed to distribution companies, such as Defendant Gyeongnam Bank, the advertising paper of this case and Kady’s product summary, and the product proposal is more likely to incur principal and loss, but it is more likely that each of the instant funds is more likely to have been paid at the interest rate or less than that of Mady Bank’s.

(6) The list of additional information in the certificate of derivatives transactions sent by CSBi, an operating company of each OTC derivatives of this case, to Defendant us indicates the risk factors of each OTC derivatives of this case, stating that “The OTC derivatives of this case entails considerable risk, so it is appropriate for investors with knowledge and experience in finance and management issues necessary to assess risks and disadvantages in investment in OTC derivatives, who can voluntarily review all risks prior to investment decisions, conduct necessary research, and ultimately cover losses in total amount of investment.” However, Defendant 2 instructed investors, including Defendant Gyeongnam Bank, to engage in sales activities of each of the instant OTC derivatives of this case through the LUB data of each of the instant funds distributed to each of the instant companies including Defendant Gyeongnam Bank for a long period of time through retirement allowances or other surplus funds.”

7) In selling beneficiary certificates of each of the instant funds to the Plaintiffs without understanding their characteristics or risks because they did not receive proper education on the structure of each of the funds, the employees in charge of the sales of Defendant Gyeongnam Bank merely emphasizes that each of the instant funds was safe in terms of the structure and risks in which each of the instant funds was to be repaid on a fixed rate of “five-year government bond interest rate + 1.2% per annum” with the same grade as the national credit rating of the Republic of Korea, and paid the fixed amount of income every six years for every six years.” However, each of the instant funds did not explain the structure and risks in which the redemption amount paid at maturity is to be determined as a high-profit product.

(3) Examining these facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, since each of the instant OTC derivatives subject to the principal investment of each of the instant funds was structured based on a stock swap (EDS), it was difficult for investors to know that the factors leading to determining the possibility of loss of the investment principal are different from general bonds or bank deposits. The quarterly final revenue with the stock swap with the major financial resources are different from ordinary bonds or bank deposits. Thus, the Defendants have a duty to protect investors by providing accurate information so that investors can make reasonable investment decisions after accurately understanding the profits and risks of investment of each of the instant OTC derivatives, and explaining the contents thereof so that investors can understand them. However, in light of the Plaintiff’s duty to make reasonable investment decisions at that time, the Defendants violated the Defendants’ obligation to use the pertinent OTC derivatives derivatives’ respective investment risk or to provide accurate information on each of the instant funds, and each of the instant securities investment trust and investment risk caused damage to the Defendants’ respective investment trust and investment risk to each of the instant funds, and each of the instant securities investment trust and investment risk with the Defendant’s respective investment trust and investment risk information.

In the same purport, the lower court was justifiable to have determined that the Defendants committed a joint tort in violation of the duty to protect the Plaintiffs. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the duty to protect the investors of an asset management company and a distributor under the Indirect Investment Act, or on the causal relationship

In addition, this part of the defendants' remaining grounds of appeal are nothing more than misunderstanding the evidence preparation and fact-finding, which are the exclusive authority of the fact-finding court, and it cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal.

The Defendants’ ground of appeal on this part is without merit.

B. As to the ground of appeal No. 2 by Defendant Gyeongnam Bank

Property damage caused by a tort is a difference between the property disadvantage caused by the tort and the current property status that would have existed without a tort. It includes active damages that would have lost existing interests and passive damages that could not obtain profits that could have been gained in the future. Whether such damage actually occurred or not should be determined reasonably in light of social norms (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 91Da33070, Jun. 23, 1992; Supreme Court Decision 97Da4760, Aug. 25, 1998).

In light of the above legal principles, damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the defendants' violation of the defendants' duty to protect investors are the total amount of the invested amount that could not be recovered by joining the fund of this case and the actual profit that could not be gained from the future. However, the plaintiffs' investment decision due to the defendants' violation of the defendants' duty to protect investors was based on the premise that they hold beneficiary certificates until maturity in principle. However, the plaintiffs' investment decision was made on the premise that they held beneficiary certificates until maturity. However, since the funds of this case were granted options to redeem beneficiary certificates prior to maturity, it is difficult to estimate in advance the amount that can be recovered by maturity due to quarterly settlement revenue and the structure where the base price changes. Thus, the damages suffered by the defendants' tort are realistic and conclusive at maturity or at the time of actual repurchase, and the damages suffered by the plaintiffs up to that time have causation with the defendants' harmful act. Unlike this, the damages suffered by the plaintiffs at the time when the plaintiffs were served with a notice on redemption or immediately after redemption cannot be deemed as having causation with the harmful act by the defendants.

In the same purport, the court below is just to calculate the amount of damages by recognizing the damages as at the time of actual redemption, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to causation or the time of loss compensation in tort liability

The above defendant's ground of appeal is without merit.

C. As to the ground of appeal Nos. 4 of Defendant Korea’s operation and the ground of appeal No. 4 of Defendant Gyeongnam Bank

This part of the ground of appeal is relevant to the fact-finding or decision-finding on the grounds of comparative negligence or limitation of liability, and as seen thereafter, the judgment of the court below on the grounds of the misapprehension of the legal principles as to comparative negligence in relation to comparative negligence in relation to comparative negligence in relation to comparative negligence and comparative negligence after comparative negligence set-off in the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained, so the judgment of the court below on comparative negligence or limitation of liability cannot be affirmed. Thus, the judgment on this part of the ground of appeal is omitted.

However, the lower court’s aforementioned misapprehension of legal doctrine does not affect the part against the Defendants regarding the conjunctive claim by Plaintiffs 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6, and each of the principal damages damages in the part against Defendant Gyeongnam Bank as to the conjunctive claim by Plaintiffs 5 and 7. Therefore, this part is not included in the scope of reversal.

3. The plaintiffs' grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

A. As to the ground of appeal Nos. 1 and 4 by the Plaintiff 1 Dong-dong Saemaul Savings Depository

In order to establish a claim for damages arising from a tort, not only an intentional or negligent act exists, but also an actual occurrence of damage arising from a causal relationship with the illegal act. In addition, as seen earlier, property damage arising from an illegal harmful act is the difference between the property disadvantage arising therefrom, i.e., the property disadvantage that would have existed without the illegal act, and the current property condition, and the determination of whether such damage actually occurred shall be made reasonably in light

In light of the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, damages suffered by the Defendant’s violation of the Defendants’ duty to protect investors are the total amount of the invested amount that could not be recovered by joining the Fund No. 2, and the actual profit that could not be gained from the future. The Defendants’ investment decision due to the Defendants’ violation of the duty to protect investors was based on the premise that, in principle, the said Plaintiff’s investment decision was held at maturity. Since the Fund No. 2, even after the date of closing argument in the lower court, quarterly settlement revenue was paid until maturity and the base price was changed, it is difficult to estimate in advance the amount that can be recovered until maturity. The Plaintiff’s damages cannot be deemed to have yet been realized and determined. The Plaintiff’s redemption of the instant beneficiary certificates even before maturity, could have advanced the time of actual damages by determining the amount recoverable from the invested amount and the actual profit amount, but the standards set forth in the Fund Subscription Agreement cannot be evaluated as having been actually exercised by the date of closing argument in the lower court or before the date of closing argument in the lower court.

In the same purport, the court below is just to reject the plaintiff's claim for active damages among the plaintiff's conjunctive claims, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the concept of damages in tort or the legal principles on decision of the time of damages

Meanwhile, in light of the following circumstances, among the facts acknowledged by the court below, the maturity of the fund No. 2 of this case is six years, and the defendants engaged in sales activities of the fund No. 2 of this case compared to financial products with the fund No. 2 of this case, national treasury bonds, commercial banks subordinate to commercial banks, bank deposits, etc., barring any other special circumstances, the above plaintiff invested the principal invested in the fund No. 2 of this case at least the fixed deposit interest rate and at least the interest rate equivalent to the principal invested in the fund No. 2 of this case if the defendants did not commit the above illegal act. Thus, the above plaintiff is likely to suffer special damage that is likely to lose the expectation interest equivalent to the interest of the fixed deposit interest on the investment principal at least due to the defendants' illegal act, and the defendants are also likely to know or have known. Nevertheless, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the above plaintiff invested in the national treasury bonds or similar financial products, which had been guaranteed if the above plaintiff explained full explanation of the fund No. 2 of this case from the defendants.

However, as long as the maturity of the Fund No. 2 of this case also comes or the above Plaintiff does not repurchase the Fund No. 2 of this case, it cannot be deemed that the actual and conclusive loss occurred as it did not actually and definitely. Thus, the above error by the court below did not affect the conclusion of the judgment.

The court below is justified in its conclusion to reject the Plaintiff’s conjunctive claim against the Defendants, and therefore, the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal on this part is without merit.

B. As to the ground of appeal No. 4 by Plaintiffs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the claim by the above plaintiffs for lost profit damages on the ground that there is no evidence to acknowledge that the above plaintiffs would have subscribed to government bonds or similar financial instruments if they had fully explained from the defendants about each of the funds of this case.

However, in light of the following circumstances, among the facts acknowledged by the lower court, the maturity of each of the instant funds is six years, and the Defendants conducted sales activities of each of the instant funds compared with each of the instant funds and government bonds, commercial banks subordinate to commercial banks, and bank deposits, barring any special circumstances, the said Plaintiffs invested the principal invested in each of the instant funds in a stable financial product with at least the interest rate equivalent to fixed deposit interest rate, if they did not commit the Defendants’ illegal act. Therefore, the said Plaintiffs suffered special damages that would have lost the expectation interest equivalent to the interest on fixed deposits in the invested principal at least due to the Defendants’ illegal act, and the Defendants were also aware or could have known such circumstances.

The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the requirements for special damage.

The above plaintiffs' ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

C. As to the ground of appeal No. 3 by Plaintiffs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the facts, and calculated the final amount of damages that the above plaintiffs received prior to the redemption of each of the above plaintiffs by deducting the final profits received prior to the redemption of each of the above plaintiffs from the amount calculated by offsetting negligence or limiting liability based on the amount of damages, and calculated the final amount of damages that the defendants would compensate the above plaintiffs.

However, according to the facts acknowledged by the court below, the above plaintiffs' damages occurred actually and definitely at the time of receiving the redemption money after repurchase of each of the beneficiary certificates of this case, and it constitutes an element of calculating the amount of damages of the above plaintiffs prior to offsetting negligence, and it cannot be deemed that the above plaintiffs' damages calculated without considering it as stated by the court below should be deducted based on the amount of comparative negligence or limitation of liability.

The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the elements of calculating the amount of damages and the benefits to be deducted after offsetting negligence, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

The above plaintiffs' ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

D. Of the grounds of appeal No. 2 by Plaintiffs 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7, as to the misapprehension of legal principles as to comparative negligence in joint tort

In the establishment of a joint tort, there is no need for the common or joint perception between the joint tortfeasors, and there is sufficient common sense about each act objectively, so if damages were incurred by the related joint act, the liability for damages cannot be exempted. In addition, the liability for joint tort is not individually seeking damages from each act of the tortfeasors, but pursuing the liability for the joint tort jointly committed by the tortfeasors. Thus, even if the ratio of negligence against each joint tortfeasor of the victim differs on the basis of the victim's negligence, even if the court offsets the amount of negligence against each joint tortfeasors, the victim's negligence shall not be individually assessed against each joint tortfeasors, but shall be assessed as a whole by the negligence against all of them (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da32999, Jun. 14, 2007).

After finding facts as stated in its reasoning, the lower court: (a) deemed that the negligence ratio of the Plaintiffs 2, 3, and 7 against the Defendant Kimnam Bank is 60%; and (b) limited the liability of the Defendant Kim Nam Bank to 40%; (c) deemed that the negligence ratio of the Plaintiffs 4 and 5 against the Defendant Kim Nam Bank is 70%; and (d) limited the liability of the Defendant Kim Nam Bank to 30%; and (e) limited the liability of the said Plaintiffs to 25% on the ground that the negligence ratio of the said Plaintiffs’ operation

However, the judgment of the court below is contrary to the above legal principles in that it assessed the error ratio against the Defendants differently, and there is no special reason to regard the defendants' liability ratio differently in relation to the above Plaintiffs. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on comparative negligence in joint tort, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

The above plaintiffs' ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

E. As to the remaining grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 by Plaintiffs 1 and 6

This part of the ground of appeal pertains to the fact-finding or decision on the grounds of comparative negligence or limitation of liability, and as seen earlier, as long as the court below reverses the part of the judgment of the court below against the plaintiffs as to the conjunctive claim of the above plaintiffs on the grounds of the misapprehension of the legal principles as to comparative negligence in the comparative negligence, the judgment of the court below as to comparative negligence or limitation of liability cannot be maintained. Thus, this part of the ground of appeal

4. The decision on the starting date of the damages for delay shall be made ex officio.

As seen earlier, the issue of whether damage was actually incurred due to a tort ought to be determined reasonably in light of social norms. Moreover, if there is a time interval between the time of the illegal act and the time of the damage occurrence, damages for damages arising from a tort shall be deemed to have accrued as the initial date of the damage occurrence.

In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the damages of Plaintiffs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 are “the principal subscribed to each of the instant funds of the instant Plaintiffs + lost profit - the amount of quarterly final settlement revenue - the amount of quarterly final settlement revenue received,” and the damages of Plaintiffs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 are actual and conclusive at the time when the said Plaintiffs redeemed each of the instant beneficiary certificates and received the redemption money. Therefore, the time when each of the instant Plaintiffs received the redemption money is the initial date for damages compensation for tort.

Nevertheless, the court below calculated the amount of damages of the above plaintiffs in the formula of "the principal of each of the funds of this case - the amount of redemption payment", and calculated the final amount of damages that the above plaintiffs received prior to the redemption of each of the damages from the calculated amount of comparative negligence offsetting or limitation of liability based on the amount of damages, and calculated the final amount of damages that the defendants would compensate the above plaintiffs, but determined that the damages for damages of the above plaintiffs occurred from the date of entering into each of the fund. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles

5. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the same plaintiffs as to the conjunctive claim of plaintiffs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, and the part against the defendants as to the conjunctive claim of plaintiffs 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 6, and the part against the defendant Gyeongnam Bank as to the damages for delay, and the part against the defendant Gyeongnam Bank as to the conjunctive claim of plaintiffs 5, 7, are reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. The remaining appeals by the plaintiff 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, and all remaining appeals by the defendants are dismissed, and the costs of appeal by the plaintiff 1, 1, 2, 4, 6, and 7 are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent

Justices Lee Sang-hoon (Presiding Justice)