See Attached List 1 (Law Firm Shin, Attorneys Kim-nam et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Korean Asset Management Co., Ltd. and one other (Law Firm Barun et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Han Bank Co., Ltd. and two others (Attorneys Park Jong-sung et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

March 15, 2011 (as regards the Defendant Bank, Korea Investment Securities Company, and Dongbu Securities Company)

July 19, 2011 (as regards Defendant Asset Management Co., Ltd. and Han Bank Co., Ltd.)

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2008Gahap109031 Decided November 20, 2009

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the parts of the order Nos. 1, 2, and 4 against Defendant Korea Asset Management Co., Ltd. and Han Bank are modified as follows.

A. Defendant Korea Asset Management Co., Ltd. shall pay to the Plaintiffs 6% interest per annum from June 23, 2010 to September 1, 2011, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

B. The plaintiffs' claims against Han Bank Co., Ltd. and the remaining claims against Defendant Korea Asset Management Co., Ltd. are dismissed.

2. The plaintiffs' appeals against Defendant Woori Bank Co., Ltd., Korea Investment Securities Co., Ltd., and Dong Securities Co., Ltd. are dismissed.

3. Of the total litigation costs, 1/5 of the costs incurred between the plaintiffs and the defendant Korea Asset Management Co., Ltd. shall be borne by the plaintiffs; 4/5 of the costs incurred between the plaintiffs and the defendant Korea Asset Management Co., Ltd.; and the costs of appeal between the plaintiffs and Korea Co., Ltd.; and the costs of appeal between the plaintiffs and Korea Co., Ltd.; and

1. Purport of claim

A. From June 21, 2007 to the date of final delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case from June 21, 2007 to the date of complete payment, Defendant Korea Asset Management Co., Ltd., Han Bank, and Korea Bank shall pay to the Plaintiffs 1 to 208 listed in the separate sheet No. 1 listed in the separate sheet No. 1 listed in the separate sheet No. 1 listed above, 6% per annum, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

B. Defendant Korea Asset Management Co., Ltd., Han Bank, and Korea Investment Securities Co., Ltd. shall pay to the Plaintiffs No. 209 through No. 213 listed in the separate sheet No. 1 listed in the separate sheet No. 2, the amount calculated at the rate of 6% per annum from June 21, 2007 to the date of final delivery of the copy of the instant complaint, and the amount calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

C. Defendant Korea Asset Management Co., Ltd, Han Bank, and Dong Securities Co., Ltd. shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount invested by the Plaintiff as stated in the separate sheet No. 214 as indicated in the separate sheet No. 214 as to the amount invested by the Plaintiff and the amount calculated at the rate of 6% per annum from June 21, 2007 to the date of final delivery of the copy of the instant complaint, and 20% per annum from the following to the date of full payment.

2. Purport of appeal

A. The plaintiffs

In the judgment of the first instance court, the part against the plaintiffs against the defendants shall be revoked. The judgment like the purport of the claim shall be sought.

B. Defendant Korea Asset Management Corporation, Han Bank

In the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the above Defendants against Defendant Korea Asset Management Co., Ltd. and Han Bank shall be revoked, and all of the plaintiffs' claims against the above Defendants shall be dismissed.

1. Facts of recognition;

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as follows: (a) the first head of the first head of the first instance court’s judgment (No. 15No. 4); and (b) the part concerning “1. Recognition” in the judgment of the first instance is identical to the part concerning “1. Recognition” in the judgment of the first instance, except for the use of each second head as follows; and (c) thereby, the same is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

“2) The terms and conditions of early repayment of the instant fund were not satisfied, and when the parties to the instant OTC derivatives assume that it would be Paris, as of June 16, 2010, the date of maturity assessment of the instant fund, the instant trust terms and conditions as of June 16, 2010, and the rate of return on maturity (information) pursuant to the investment prospectus as of June 16, 2010 are -33.30%, and accordingly, the Plaintiffs can receive 66.43% of the investment principal as maturity repayment on June 22, 2010, the date of maturity repayment.”

2. The plaintiffs' assertion

(a) Cancellation;

The Defendants, due to the reasons attributable to the Defendants, are unable to perform the obligation to conclude the OTC derivatives transaction contract with the Vienna Parisb, which is the most important obligation in the instant investment trust contract, and the Plaintiffs cancel the instant investment trust contract by serving a copy of the complaint of this case. As such, the Defendants are obligated to pay the respective Plaintiffs statutory interest and delay damages from June 21, 2007, which is the final payment date of the Plaintiffs’ respective investment amounts and each of the above investments, as the duty to restore due to the cancellation of the contract.

(b) Non-performance or illegal acts following change of trading partners;

1) Defendant Korea Asset Management changed the transaction partner of over-the-counter derivatives to a remoteer Asian region without the Plaintiffs’ prior consent.

2) Unlike the instant investment prospectus, Defendant Han Bank purchased OTC derivatives issued by NIB Asia without demanding the withdrawal, amendment, or correction of the management instructions issued by NIB with respect to the management instructions issued by NIB Asia.

3) Even though Defendant Woori Bank, Korea Investment Securities, and Dongbu Securities were aware that if they sold beneficiary certificates of the Fund in excess of KRW 20,000,000 in excess of KRW 20,000,000,000, they could not engage in OTC derivatives transactions with Paris, they sold beneficiary certificates of the Fund in excess of KRW 20,000,000,000, and as above, in excess of KRW 20,000,000, the Fund did not give any notice of the possibility of change to the other party to the OTC derivatives while selling beneficiary certificates of the Fund in excess of KRW 20,00,00,00, and they knew that they would pay short-term loans out of the investment amount, and all (98.4% out of the investment amount) excluding the deposit amount of financial institutions (98.4% out of the investment amount) to the other party to the OTC derivatives, the investment prospectus in this case stated that the subject of investment and investment limit are less than 70%, 30%, and 30%.

In addition, the above Defendants had known that the structure of the Fund was well understood from the point of view of the formation of the Fund, and thus, it was impossible for the Fund to repay even in the middle of the provisions of the former Telecommunication Act from the beginning of the beginning, but only notified the Plaintiffs of the fact that it is highly likely to incur loss to the principal when the Fund is redeemed, without informing the Plaintiffs of the fact that it is impossible to redeem even though it was out of the beginning.

4) The Defendants are liable for damages suffered by the Plaintiffs due to the aforementioned tort or nonperformance. The Defendants are liable to pay to each of the Plaintiffs damages for delay from June 21, 2007, which is the date of the final payment of the Plaintiffs’ respective investment amounts and each of the above investment amounts in the separate sheet No. 2 list.

3. Judgment on the claim for restitution due to the cancellation of contract

○ The rescission of the instant investment trust contract is not recognized.

1) Relevant provisions of the former Act, etc.

(1) An indirect investor may file a claim for redemption of indirect investment securities at any time. (2) An investment trust company that has received a claim for redemption of indirect investment securities under the main sentence of paragraph (2) shall demand an asset management company to repurchase without delay. (3) An asset management company that redeems indirect investment securities under Article 63 (1) (1) an asset management company that owns indirect investment securities shall pay damages to beneficiaries within the scope of redemption prescribed by the Presidential Decree or the articles of incorporation of the investment trust. (2) The provisions of Article 64 (Redemption Price and Fees) (1) The redemption of indirect investment securities shall be based on the base price calculated pursuant to the provisions of Article 105 (Cancellation of Investment Trusts) (1) The provisions of the former Enforcement Decree.

2) Determination

In full view of the above provisions of the former Investment Trust Act, where an asset management company terminates an investment trust in whole or in part at the request of investors, etc., the asset management company, etc. shall pay a redemption price to investors only with the assets belonging to the investment trust property, not the proprietary property. For this purpose, Article 44(1) of the instant Trust Terms and Conditions also provides that the asset management company shall, without delay, allow the trustee company to pay the redemption amount and profit of the investment trust principal to beneficiaries via the selling company (see subparagraph 3 of the same Article).

In addition, the former Act imposes an obligation on an asset management company to manage the indirect investment property with the care of a good manager, and if any damage is incurred to an investor in violation of this, it shall compensate for such damage with its proprietary property. However, the asset management company's liability for performance of transaction due to asset management instructions, such as acquisition and sale of assets, shall be borne within the scope of the

In full view of the above provisions, in a case where an investment trust contract becomes effective and the trust relationship is formed, and the trust relationship remains effective, the investor's property right to the investment trust shall be limited to the trust property, not the trust property of the trust company or the trustee company. Thus, even in a case where investors intend to resolve the investment trust, they can recover the amount invested from the trust property, and the investor can not individually recover the total amount of investment from the trust property of the asset management company, the trustee company, or the selling company, claiming the retroactive effect following the cancellation of the investment trust contract (i.e., the above provision provides for the special provisions of the Civil Act and the Trust Act as to

The grounds for revocation asserted by the plaintiffs in this case are that Defendant Korea Asset Management changed the contents of the investment prospectus of this case after the establishment of the investment trust contract of this case with the validity of the investment trust contract of this case, so if there is an ex post facto violation of the investment trust contract of this case, it is sufficient to compensate for the damages with the inherent property of the asset management company, etc. in accordance with the compensation provisions for the violation of the duty of the asset management company, etc. under Articles 19(1), 61, 133, and 179 of the former Investment Trust Act, and further, it cannot be allowed to cancel the investment trust contract of this case for the reason

If it is deemed that even after the establishment of an investment trust contract that is otherwise effective, the original investment amount can be recovered from the trust property by recognizing the investor's claim for cancellation of the contract and the return of the investment amount can be recovered from the trust property, it is difficult to permit the securities investment trust as it is against the principle of self-responsibility, which is one of the principle of performance distribution, which is the principle of self-responsibility and the principle of performance distribution that the investor should bear in principle, or the result alone is against the principle of equality of beneficiaries who are equally equally divided among beneficiaries in accordance with the principle of transparency of the number of beneficiary certificates.

In the end, the plaintiffs' assertion on the termination of contract is without reason to examine further.

4. Determination as to the non-performance of obligation or tort claim

A. Defendant Korea Asset Management

1) In the investment prospectus, the part where the other party to the transaction was made in Paris constitutes a content of the instant investment trust agreement.

A) Provisions of the former Investment Scheme related to the investment prospectus

(1) An asset management company or investment company of an investment trust shall, when it issues indirect investment securities, prepare an investment prospectus with respect to whether its contents conform to the Acts and subordinate statutes, trust terms and conditions or the articles of incorporation of the investment company. This shall also apply to the case where the investment prospectus is modified (excluding the case prescribed by Presidential Decree) following the alteration of the trust terms and conditions or the articles of incorporation of the investment company.

B) Determination

In light of the following points, the part where the investment prospectus of this case directly made the opposite contractual party Paris constitutes the content of the instant investment trust agreement, and accordingly, Defendant Korea Asset Management Co., Ltd is deemed to have a contractual obligation to manage the investment assets by making the opposite contractual party Paris at the Paris. The argument of Defendant Korea Asset Management Co., Ltd. to this different purport is rejected.

(1) The trading partner of derivative financial products is specifically emphasized in the investment prospectus as one of major investment risks.

Article 56(4)2 of the former Telecommunication Act and Article 54(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Telecommunication Act require that matters concerning investment risks be entered in the investment prospectus, and in particular, it should be easily recognizable to the people by means of using singing them by cutting and printing letters. In the investment prospectus of this case, credit risk of the opposite contractual party is stipulated as major investment risk, and in particular, the credit rating of the opposite contractual party of the over-the-counter derivatives incorporated into the fund is stipulated as the opposite contractual party of the over-the-counter derivatives as of February 7, 2006 and the credit rating of the Vienna Paris, which is the opposite contractual party of the over-the-counter derivatives incorporated into the fund, is emphasized in red or yellow.

(2) The entry of the opposite contractual party is not voluntary.

The entry of the other party in the investment prospectus of this case seems not to be a voluntary measure based on the counter guidance of financial supervisory agencies or on consideration of investors in the Defendant’s assets management. As seen earlier, Article 56(4)5 of the former Telecommunication Act - Article 54(7) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Indirect Investment Asset Management Act - Article 52(5) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Indirect Investment Asset Management Business Regulation (Financial Supervisory Commission) - Article 14 of the same Enforcement Rule (Financial Supervisory Commission) - The obligation to enter under the law is assigned in the order delegated

(3) The entry in the investment prospectus may not be restricted from the transfer to the contract in accordance with the trust deed.

It is difficult for general investors to understand the terms and conditions of trust with the legal provisions on the relationship between the parties.In order to supplement this point, it is the purpose of the investment prospectus system to prepare investment prospectus to explain and specify the contents of the terms and conditions of trust in a complementary manner, and to overcome the identity of information on indirect investment and to fully understand the contents of the goods to be subscribed to by investors.

Therefore, it is common that the investment prospectus generally summarizes or supplements the contents of the trust agreement. However, in this case, there is a feature that the terms and conditions of the trust agreement include matters concerning the other party, which are not stipulated in the investment prospectus.

However, in such a case, the investment prospectus is merely to help investors understand the investors' goods, and if the terms and conditions of trust, not the investment prospectus, are interpreted as the terms and conditions of the contract, it is not the conclusion of denying the existence of the investment prospectus system itself as follows.

In other words, the investment prospectus is a compulsory disclosure system that is one of the regulatory methods for the protection of investors under the former Telecommunication Act, and as seen earlier, the former Telecommunication Act, etc. has detailed provisions on the preparation, confirmation, submission, renewal, provision and explanation duty, procedures for modification, method of preparation, and matters to be stated in the investment prospectus, and is subject to criminal punishment if the investment prospectus is not provided or prepared in a false manner (Article 184 subparagraph 7 of the former Telecommunication Act). Above all, the investment prospectus plays an important role in making a careful decision on investment in accordance with the analysis of the relevant information by explaining all important information necessary for the investor to make a final decision related to the risks of investment, and the investor decides whether to conclude the investment trust contract based on the contents of the investment prospectus, not the trust terms.

If, as in this case, if a trust agreement and an investment prospectus are inconsistent with any other terms and conditions, only the investment prospectus are interpreted to have no contractual validity, the asset management company will be free from any disadvantage when the investment prospectus is entered differently from the terms and conditions of the trust agreement, and the investors also cannot re-examine the terms and conditions of the trust rather than the terms and conditions of the investment prospectus provided by the distribution company while entering into the investment trust agreement, and thus, the investment prospectus system loses its existence basis, and most of the legislative purposes of the former Act, which provide for the investment prospectus system, can not be achieved to protect investors. In this regard, Article 19 of the former Act recognizes liability for damages to an asset management company, etc. even for an act that violates only the “investment prospectus”.

Therefore, even if the content of the instant investment prospectus is not expressly stipulated in the terms and conditions of trust, it shall be deemed that the content of the instant investment trust agreement is included in the content of the instant investment trust agreement as an individual agreement supplementing the terms and conditions of the trust agreement, and it shall not be deemed that such content is merely a matter that can be changed at any time at the discretion of the

④ Given the characteristics of the instant fund, the trading partner has an important meaning.

In the case of the instant fund, it is necessary to acquire over-the-counter derivatives as most of the investment funds (Article 98.4%) and not to acquire other assets, and thus it is unnecessary to manage particular assets. The over-the-counter derivatives of the instant fund are products with a long-term liquidity low for up to three years, for which the profit structure can be set in advance under a contract with the other party to the transaction, and thus, the specific transaction partner of over-the-counter derivatives and the credit rating stated in the instant investment prospectus are more important than those of other types of fund products.

2) Defendant Korea Asset Management Company’s arbitrary change of the trading partner stated in the investment prospectus constitutes nonperformance of obligation as it goes beyond the scope of the asset management company’s discretion, and the said Defendant is liable for damages under Article 19 of the former Investment Act.

(i)Non-performance of obligation

As seen earlier, Article 19 of the former Telecommunication Act provides, “In the event an asset management company commits an act in violation of Acts and subordinate statutes, the terms and conditions of the investment trust, the articles of incorporation of the investment company, and the investment prospectus under Article 56, or causes damage to indirect investors by neglecting its business, the company shall be liable to compensate for the damage.”

Defendant Korea Asset Management is obligated to manage assets by making the transaction partner of over-the-counter derivatives as stated in the instant investment prospectus. However, without obtaining consent from the Plaintiffs, Defendant Korea Asset Management changed the transaction partner of over-the-counter derivatives to Non-UNFCCC Paris Asia, and the Plaintiffs suffered losses from completely recovering investments.

Therefore, this constitutes “a case where Defendant Korea Asset Management Co., Ltd. commits an act in violation of the investment prospectus to cause damage to the Plaintiffs who are indirect investors,” and the above Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiffs for such damage as prescribed by Article 19 of the former Telecommunication Act (the liability under the former Telecommunication Act is deemed to have the nature of default liability when the investment prospectus became a part of the investment trust agreement as in the instant case, and thus, the Plaintiffs’ assertion on the nonperformance of obligation can also be deemed to include the assertion on the liability under the former Telecommunication Act. The Plaintiffs also claim for tort liability as well. Although the aforementioned direct contractual relationship between the Plaintiffs and Defendant Korea Asset Management, it appears that it would be adequate to recognize the liability for nonperformance, and even if the tort liability of the above Defendant is recognized, as long as the content or scope of the damage differs,

C. Judgment on the argument of Defendant 1’s assets management

㈎ 피고 우리자산운용의 주장

The first transaction partner decided to trade over-the-counter derivatives within the limit of KRW 20,000,000 with the Paris for the first transaction partner. As a result of attracting investors of the instant fund, it was impossible to maintain the initial transaction with the Paris for the first time when the size of the instant fund exceeded KRW 28,00,000,000.

In a situation where it is necessary to find an appropriate transaction partner in order to realize the profit conditions presented in advance to investors, the investment proposal of this case issued by the above Defendant to the selling company must be higher than the credit rating of the trading partner of over-class A [the investment proposal of this case also issued by the said company should be higher than the credit rating of the Republic of Korea (S&P "A" and non-exclusive "A3"] among the three credit rating companies in the world, which meet the internal criteria for the operation of the Defendant’s assets, and the foreign financial institutions in relation to the credit rating of the trading partner of over-the-counter derivatives are also in conformity with the above criteria] to change the trading partner into S&P Asia. The change of the trading partner should be allowed to be at the discretion of the asset management company, and it was not possible at all at the time of the bankruptcy of the N.

Accordingly, the investment prospectus was modified, the revised investment prospectus was submitted to the Financial Supervisory Service with the confirmation of Defendant Han Bank, the trustee company, and the revised investment prospectus was also posted on the Internet homepage, etc. of Defendant Han Bank’s asset management, and subsequently, it was ordered Defendant Han Bank to purchase OTC derivatives issued by Entertainment Asia under the Human Manager’s payment guarantee. The asset management report, which was modified to investors every three months, was provided to investors, and the Plaintiffs consented or ratified as impliedly because they did not raise any objection thereto. Thus, the procedure for the change is also appropriate.

The other party to the transaction of over-the-counter derivatives is not indicated in the terms and conditions of trust, product summary, and investment proposal, and the terms and conditions of the instant trust agreement allow changes to the other party. The content of the instant investment prospectus is merely the fact that the Paris will be incorporated into the other party to the transaction. In the transaction practice, investors are only interested in the profit, expense structure, underlying assets, etc. of the fund, and there is no interest in the other party to the transaction. Any changes made by the other party to the transaction are not subject to the resolution of

Therefore, Defendant Korea Asset Management performed its duty of care as a good manager within the scope of discretion held as an asset management company in managing the instant fund.

㈏ 판단

If a management company instructs the management of the trust property with a prudent belief that it is consistent with the highest interest of the trust property based on the information collected to the extent possible, it shall be deemed that it fulfills its duty of due care as a good manager, and even if such prediction is unbrooms or losses have occurred to the trust property, it cannot be deemed that it breached its duty of due care as a good manager in the course of operating the investment trust (Supreme Court Decision 2001Da11802 Decided July 11, 2003), and the defendant's asset management company has considerable discretion on the management of the trust property and incurred losses to the trust property due to its failure to predict its bankruptcy, it cannot be deemed that the above defendant breached its duty of due care as a good manager.

However, in light of the following circumstances revealed by the facts acknowledged above and the evidence admitted, the defendant's act of arbitrarily changing the trading partner and managing the investment assets cannot be deemed to have fulfilled the duty of due care of a good manager as required by the former Telecommunication Act. The above defendant's assertion cannot be accepted.

① As the above Defendant was a person, when an investor recruited more than the originally scheduled amount and exceeded the maximum limit of the funds set forth in the United Nations Paris, the Plaintiff maintained the number of investors recruited as above and changed the opposite contractual party to the Paris Asia with a higher credit risk than the UNFCCC’s Paris for the sole purpose of expanding the investment scale (only in the case of tending, it can be deemed that the Plaintiff did not take charge of risks arising from exceeding the initially agreed maximum limit of the funds from the standpoint of the UNFCCCF).

② Investment proposal or product summary is prepared for the purpose of providing information to the selling company and executives and employees of the management company, and it is not directly provided to the customer, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the said investment proposal, etc. has been presented to the Plaintiffs. It cannot be deemed justifiable solely on the ground that the beneficiary’s general meeting is not subject to resolution or the above Defendant complies with the internal standards set by itself. Rather, in light of the purport of the investment prospectus system acknowledged earlier, it is reasonable to recognize the binding force of the investment prospectus as stated on the content of the investment prospectus specifically

③ The Defendant modified the content of the instant investment prospectus and did not seem to have obtained an explicit approval from the Financial Supervisory Service as to the legitimacy of the amendment (as a result of fact-finding with regard to the Governor of the Financial Supervisory Service, the Financial Supervisory Service rejected or rejected the receipt of the investment prospectus, and the transaction partner stated in the investment prospectus may be deemed to have become final and conclusive, except in extenuating circumstances. However, according to the “legal procedure”, it cannot be deemed that the verification procedure of the trustee company is subject to the legitimacy of the amendment of the investment prospectus, as seen below.

④ Defendant Korea Asset Management Company failed to deliver a modified investment prospectus to investors via a distribution company, and thus, did not comply with the procedures set forth in the former Transboundary Act and the Trust Terms and Conditions (Article 50(2)5 of the Trust Terms and Conditions) (Article 50(5) of the Trust Terms and Conditions) (Article 50(2)5 of the Trust Terms and Conditions) without delay, on the company’s Internet homepage, main office, branch office, and sales office, or by e-mail, after the occurrence of a change in the investment prospectus. See evidence 3). As a result of the Financial Supervisory Service’s inspection pertaining thereto, Defendant Korea Asset Management Company was subject to dispositions, such as warning, reprimand, and salary reduction (see evidence 34 of the Trust Terms and Conditions).

⑤ As a result, the selling company and investors did not recognize the change of the trading partner for a considerable period of time (e.g., Defendant Woori Bank was notified on September 22, 2008, after the Investment Company filed an application for bankruptcy protection. See subparagraph 1 of the same Article). There is no sufficient material to deem that the Plaintiffs directly received the asset management report containing a change in the trading partner, and did not raise any objection thereto. Rather, Article 100(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Securities and Exchange Act provides the asset management report to indirect investors by mailing the asset management company through a distribution company, barring special circumstances. However, as seen earlier, the distribution company failed to become aware of the change of the trading partner.

(6) Even if the amendment of the investment prospectus under the former Cross-State Act does not necessarily require the explicit prior consent of investors, it is interpreted that the procedure for providing investors with information equivalent to the duty to provide and explain the initial investment prospectus is naturally scheduled under the former Cross-State Investment Act (see the latter part of Article 56(1) of the former Cross-State Investment Act). As long as the Defendant completely deprived the Plaintiffs of their opportunity to withdraw their investment because it failed to comply with the amendment procedure stipulated in the former Cross-State Investment Act and the terms and conditions of trust, even if the amendment of the investment prospectus is within the scope of the discretion of the said Defendant or most investors are not interested in the change, it is difficult to deem that the said Defendant had fulfilled the duty of due care of a good manager

3) Extent of and limitation on liability for damages

A) Scope of damages

The damages suffered by the Plaintiffs due to Defendant Korea Asset Management’s change of OTC derivatives trading partner to an entertainment hub Asia, barring special circumstances, are profits that Defendant Korea Asset Management Company could have accrued when it fulfilled the instant investment trust agreement, and is the amount of investment that the Plaintiff could recover at the maturity of the Plaintiff, if Defendant Korea Asset Management Company did not change the trading partner of OTC derivatives to an entertainment hub Asia without changing the trading partner of OTC derivatives into a lux Asia.

In the event that the other party to the over-the-counter derivatives assumes it Paris, the fact that on June 22, 2010, the maturity repayment date of the fund of this case, the plaintiffs can receive 66.43% of the investment principal as maturity repayment, as seen above.

Therefore, it is reasonable to see that each amount of each of the investment amount of each of the plaintiffs listed in the separate sheet 2 multiplied by 66.43%, which is the amount of the above repayment ratio by each of the plaintiffs listed in the separate sheet 2 list, as the amount of damages suffered by the plaintiffs.

Accordingly, the plaintiffs claim that the amount of damages for delay from the date of the final payment of the plaintiffs' respective investment amounts and each of the above investment amounts listed in the separate sheet No. 2 list is a reasonable amount of damages. However, as seen above, damages caused by the change of the transaction partner of OTC derivatives into NTC Asia is the amount recoverable by the plaintiff if the transaction partner of OTCTC derivatives was changed to NIF Asia without changing the other party to the OTC derivatives into NIF Asia, or the entire amount of investments made by the plaintiffs. Thus, the plaintiffs' claim on the part exceeding the above recognition scope is without merit.

As a result, Defendant Korea Asset Management is obligated to pay to the Plaintiffs damages for delay calculated by the rate of 6% per annum under the Commercial Act from June 23, 2010, which is the date of the repayment of each of the cited amounts by Plaintiff as stated in the separate sheet No. 2 list, to September 1, 201, which is the date of the final judgment of the competent court, and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment.

B) Whether to limit liability

Defendant Korea Asset Management asserts that the liability of the above Defendant’s damage liability should be limited to a considerable portion, considering the following: (a) the damage of the Plaintiffs was caused by the first financial situation of the idea of bankruptcy of an unforeseeable entertainment hub; and (b) the Plaintiffs knew or could have known that the other party to the transaction was changed.

However, the damages suffered by the plaintiffs are due to the change of Defendant Korea Asset Management Company to the opposite contractual party’s arbitrarily, and it cannot be found that the reasons attributable to the plaintiffs are attributable to them, and there is no sufficient evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiffs knew or could have known the opposite contractual party’s change through the receipt of the asset management report, and even if the plaintiffs knew of the change of the opposite contractual party ex post, it is difficult to view that they have the duty to immediately pay the high redemption fee in the situation where the damage is clearly anticipated even if they knew of the change of the opposite contractual party, it is difficult to recognize the reasons to limit the amount of compensation for Defendant Korea Asset Management Company’s damages

(b) Defendant Han Bank;

Defendant Han Bank, a trustee company, shall not be liable for any change in the investment prospectus.

1) Relevant Articles of the former Telecommunication Act

Article 129 (Duty of Care of Trustee, etc.) (1) A trustee company or an asset custody company, which is included in the main text, shall faithfully perform its duties as a good manager for indirect investors in accordance with Acts and subordinate statutes, trust terms and conditions, the articles of incorporation, investment prospectus, trust deed, or asset custody entrustment contract. (1) The trustee company of an investment trust shall confirm whether management instruction of an asset management company is in violation of the Acts and subordinate statutes, trust terms and conditions, or investment prospectus under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, and shall request the asset management company to withdraw, change, or correct such management instruction. (1) After implementing the management instruction of the asset management company or the investment company in accordance with Article 131 (1) and (2) of the former Enforcement Decree, the trustee company or the asset custody company shall confirm whether the asset management violates the standards including the following subparagraphs.

2) The plaintiffs' assertion

Although Defendant Han Bank is obligated to demand the withdrawal, alteration, or correction of its operating instructions as a good manager with respect to the management instructions of Defendant Han Bank to purchase over-the-counter derivatives in violation of the instant investment prospectus, it has confirmed the other party to the transaction without obtaining the Plaintiffs’ consent as to the investment prospectus that changed to NIN Asia, and purchased over-the-counter derivatives issued by NI Bank pursuant to the management instructions. As such, Defendant Han Bank also bears the burden of default or tort liability against the Plaintiffs, along with Defendant Han Asset Management.

3) Determination

According to the statement in Eul evidence No. 4, defendant Hana Bank may recognize the fact that on June 25, 2007, the defendant Hana Bank prepared a written confirmation of the contents of the investment prospectus without any demand for revision to the investment prospectus with the content that the opposite contractual party to the OTC derivatives changed from the Paris to the NNF Asia.

However, the Defendant Han Bank, a trustee company under the former Telecommunication Act, bears the duty of due care of a good manager to monitor whether the management instruction of an asset management company is “violation of the statutes, trust terms, or investment prospectus,” and the legality of the procedure to change the transaction partner stated in the first investment prospectus as in this case is also not specified in the former Telecommunication Act or the Enforcement Decree.

Article 56 of the former Telecommunication Act only requires a trustee company to verify whether the investment prospectus conforms to the statutes and the terms and conditions of trust, and only the same applies to the case where “a modification of the details of the investment prospectus according to the terms and conditions of trust” is “a modification of the contents of the investment prospectus.” In other words, the corresponding surveillance base of the trustee company granted under the former Telecommunication Act is a law and a trust agreement, which are the basis of review of the contents of the investment prospectus. Furthermore, as to whether the amendment procedure of the investment prospectus itself is legitimate, it does not appear that the former Telecommunication Act, etc. clearly prescribes the scope of

Until there is no clear duty to monitor in the statutes and trust terms, it is a good manager to impose on the trustee company a comprehensive surveillance duty based on an independent judgment on the trustee company as a good manager (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da51334, Feb. 28, 2008), and there is a risk that the legal relationship related to collective investment schemes in which many subjects are involved is unstable.

Therefore, the defendant Han Bank cannot be deemed to bear the duty of due care of a good manager to demand withdrawal, alteration, or correction of asset management instructions as stipulated in the former Telecommunication Act with respect to the matters for which it is impossible to clearly determine their legitimacy, such as the revision of the investment prospectus in this case. Therefore, the plaintiffs' assertion against the defendant Han Bank on this premise is without merit.

C. Defendant Woori Bank, Korea Investment Securities, and Dong Securities

Defendant Woori Bank, Korea Investment Securities, and Dong Securities, a selling company, are not liable for nonperformance or tort.

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as follows, except for the determination of the plaintiffs’ assertion in the trial, the part on the claim against the bank of the court of first instance, the defendant’s investment securities, and the defendant’s accompanying securities is as stated in the part on the claim against the bank of the court of first instance, the defendant’s investment securities, and the defendant’s accompanying securities. B. Determination as to the nature of liability for tort or non-performance of obligation, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance

[Supplementary Judgment]

As to the violation of the duty to explain or protect investors, such as notifying the plaintiffs that the fund of this case is not able to redeem even though it is not possible from the beginning of the beginning of the year when the fund of this case, which is a selling company, the defendant us bank, us investment securities, and Dong securities, without informing the plaintiffs of the fact that the fund of this case is not able to redeem even though it is not possible, and notifying the plaintiffs of the fact that it is highly likely to compensate for principal loss at the time of the middle of the redemption, it is insufficient to acknowledge the above assertion only by the descriptions of the evidence No. 7-1, No.

5. Conclusion

The plaintiffs' claims within the scope of recognition of the above-mentioned assets management are accepted respectively for reasonable grounds, and the remaining claims against the plaintiffs' assets management and claims against the defendant Han Bank, Han Bank, Korea Bank, Korea Investment Securities, and Dong Securities shall be dismissed for all reasons.

Of the judgment of the first instance court, the part against Defendant Han Bank and the part against Defendant Han Bank ordering payment in excess of the above recognized amount is unfair. As such, among the judgment of the first instance, the part against Defendant Korea Asset Management Act, the part against Han Bank No. 1, 2, and 4 of the order against Han Bank is modified as above (it is decided not to attach provisional execution), and all appeals against Defendant Han Bank, Korea Investment Securities, and Dong Securities are dismissed.

[Attachment]

Judges Noh Tae (Presiding Judge) Jin Tae (Presiding Judge)