The judgment below

The part against the Defendants shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the plaintiffs' remaining grounds of appeal except for the grounds of appeal on the ratio of comparative negligence

A. As to the existence of deception, the lower court determined that the evidence submitted by the Plaintiffs alone was insufficient to recognize that the Defendants deceiving the Plaintiffs.

The judgment below

In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors in the misapprehension of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

B. As to the binding force of the operational proposal, where an asset management company issues a management plan that contains more specific contents than those of the terms and conditions of trust to investors directly or through a selling company, whether such contents are binding as an individual agreement should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the purpose, name, form, and content of the management plan, motive and circumstance of the delivery of such documents, and the party’s genuine intent.

(2) In light of the purport of Article 18(1) of the Act on the Protection, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20020, Feb. 1, 2007; Presidential Decree No. 20135, Feb. 19, 2007; Presidential Decree No. 20135, Feb. 19, 2007; Presidential Decree No. 2010, Feb. 23, 2008; Presidential Decree No. 20134, Feb. 23, 2008; Presidential Decree No. 20135, Feb. 2, 2007; Presidential Decree No. 20130, Feb. 2, 2006).