1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the money that orders additional payment is equivalent to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

Basic Facts

The reasoning for the court's explanation on this part is as stated in Paragraph (1) of the judgment of the first instance, except where "860,000,000 dollars" in the item of "minimum number of guest rooms" on the 7th page of the judgment of the first instance is "860,000 dollars", and therefore, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance. Thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article

(A) The liability for damages arising from the determination of the claim for this lawsuit is based on the indirect investment act as stated in the underlying facts of Article 1(1) of the former Indirect Investment Asset Management Business Act (repealed by Article 2 of Addenda to the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, Act No. 8635, Aug. 3, 2007). The duty of care of the asset management company is an asset management company under the Indirect Investment Act in the creation and management of the fund in this case. The asset management company under the Indirect Investment Act bears the duty of care to protect investors so that investors can make reasonable decisions based on the information provided and delivered to the selling company or investors by providing accurate information about the profit structure and risk factors of the investment trust. Thus, where the asset management company prepared and delivered a document that contains specific information about the structure and operation of the investment trust, it included information that could cause misunderstanding to investors or balance with the profit and risk of the investment trust, and if it affects the judgment of investors, it cannot be deemed that the said asset management company prepared and delivered the fund in this case’s management plan.