All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

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

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2

A. The lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s claim for damages due to the Defendant C’s subrogation on the ground that it is difficult to recognize the Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant C”)’s breach of duty of care, even if considering the evidence and the circumstances alleged by the Plaintiff, even if all of the evidence presented by the Plaintiff were to be considered, and thus, it cannot be deemed that there was a duty to compensate for damages arising therefrom, on the ground that the lower court did not accept the Plaintiff’s claim for damages by subrogation against the Defendant C.

Furthermore, based on its stated reasoning, the lower court rejected the said claim on the premise that there is a lack of evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff is a party to the deposit contract as a party to the claim for damages arising from a non-performance of obligation that the Plaintiff seeks against Defendant C, as a party to the deposit contract, and that Defendant C did not directly bear the obligation

B. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by exceeding the burden of proof as to the duty of care

2. As to the third ground for appeal

A. The court below held that Defendant D Co., Ltd (hereinafter “Defendant D”) bears the duty of care as a good manager in keeping and managing the instant collateral against the Plaintiff in accordance with the bond management contract and asset management contract of this case.