Korea Highway Corporation (Law Firm Chungcheong, Attorneys Bailment-young et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

U.S. Asset Management Corporation

Future Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Pacific et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2014Gahap115231 Decided February 17, 2017

December 15, 2017

1. The judgment of the first instance court, including the Plaintiff’s claim expanded in the trial room, shall be modified as follows.

A. The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff 3,950,969,154 won as well as 5% interest per annum from September 12, 2014 to January 19, 2018, and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

B. The plaintiff's remaining claims against the defendants are dismissed.

2. 30% of the total costs of litigation shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendants, respectively.

3. The above paragraph 1(a) may be provisionally executed.

1. Purport of claim

Defendants shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff 6,515,37,861 won and 5,638,658,370 won each year from September 12, 2014 to the date of final delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case; 20% per annum from the next day to September 30, 2015; and 15% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment; 5,583,279 won to the date of full payment; 6% per annum from September 12, 2014 to the date of final delivery of a copy of the application for change of the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim of this case; and 15% per annum from the next day to July 13, 2017 to the date of full payment (the Plaintiff extended its claim from the trial).

2. Purport of appeal

A. The plaintiff

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part on Defendant Jinjin Asset Management Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Jinjin Asset Management”) shall be revoked. The Defendant Jinjin Asset Management shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff 6,491,523,517 won and 5,638,658,370 won from September 12, 2014 to the last day of delivery of the copy of the instant complaint, 5% per annum from the next day to September 30, 2015, and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

(b) Defendant future deposit treatment;

Of the judgment of the first instance, the part on Defendant future deposit treatment shall be revoked. The Plaintiff’s claim on Defendant future deposit treatment shall be dismissed.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Status of the parties

1) The Plaintiff is a corporation established for the stabilization of livelihood and the promotion of welfare of workers of the Korea Highway Corporation pursuant to Articles 50 and 52 of the Framework Act on Labor Welfare.

2) Defendant Uijin Asset Management is a collective investment business entity that created each collective investment scheme under the name of the name of “Yijin Jink Private Equity Securities Investment Trust 1 through 6 (mortgage mixing 1 through 6)” as seen below.

3) On December 30, 2016, the future set-up Securities Co., Ltd. (Defendant’s future set-up management was merged with the future set-up Securities Co., Ltd. and took over the instant lawsuit; hereinafter “Defendant’s future set-up management and future set-up securities Co., Ltd.”) entered into a consignment contract with Defendant Uijin Asset Management Co., Ltd. on the beneficiary certificates of the said collective investment scheme (hereinafter “Defendant’s future set-up management”). Of them, the investment trader sold the beneficiary certificates “assive securities investment trust 3 through 6 (claim-combined Bonds Co., Ltd.)” to the Plaintiff.

(b) Creation of a collective investment scheme falling under any of subparagraphs 1 through 6 of the Jagabonds privately placed securities investment trust;

1) As listed below, Defendant Uijin Asset Management created a privately placed fund with 49 or less investors’ total number of investors using the method of “investment trust” under Article 9(18)1 of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (hereinafter “Capital Markets Act”) (hereinafter “Sijin Jinjin Fund Securities Investment Trust 1”, “instant fund 1 fund”, and “the instant fund 2 fund of Jin Jinjin Fund 2 Securities Investment Trust 3 (mortgage-combined securities type)” and “the instant fund of 3 fund of this case” and “the instant fund of 4 fund of this case” and “the instant fund of 5-combined securities investment trust 5” or “the instant fund of 6-type 5-type 5 [Attachment 6] collective investment scheme of 19 or less collective investment scheme of this case.”

B. On or around May 13, 2012, 2013, the title of title Nos. 1 in the main sentence is 1 U.S. e. e. 4, 2014, U.S. e. 4, 2014, U.S. e. 4, 2014, U.S. 5, U.S. 5, U.S. 14, U.S. 2014, Apr. 14, 2013, U.S. 14, U.S. 14, 2014;

2) Each of the instant funds has invested 50% or 55% of its collective investment property in domestic superior bonds, and has been managed by investing the remainder of 45% or 50% in the U.S. Life Insurance Fund (hereinafter “TPP funds”). The instant TPP funds were established and operated by the management partner partnership (hereinafter “MPL company”) with the principal office in the Kman Is Lands. On December 10, 2009, the instant TPP funds registered the instant TPP funds with the Financial Supervisory Service for professional investors for the purpose of the U.S. Financial Investment Service. The instant TPP funds purchased the U.S. Life Insurance Policy (Investment Funds) from the insured and received benefits in lieu of the insured until the insured dies.

3) On November 2011, 201, the U.K. Financial Services 200 U.K. Financial Services 100 U.K. Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets 20 U.K. Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets 10 U.K. Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets 5 U.K. Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets 1.0 U.K. Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets 2 U.K. Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets 1.0 U.K. Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets 1.0 U.K. Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets 1.0 U.K. Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets 2 U.K. Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets 1.0 U.K. Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets 5 U.K. Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets 1.0 U.K. Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets 1.0 U.K. Financial Investment Services and Capital Policy 1.0 U.K. Financial Investment Services and Investment Instruments 1.0 U.K. Financial Investment Services 2 U.S. Investment Services Guidelines 1. Investment Policy 2.MFFF. Investment Policy 3.

C. Conclusion of consignment contract on each of the instant funds between the Defendants

1) Defendant Uijin Asset Management concluded a consignment contract with Li Investment Securities Co., Ltd. with respect to the instant fund No. 1 and concluded a consignment contract with Defendant Uijin Asset Management for the purpose of concluding a consignment contract with respect to the instant fund No. 2.

2) While negotiating the conclusion of the instant consignment contract, Defendant Uijin Asset Management prepared a product guide concerning each of the instant funds (Evidence Nos. 3, 5, 8, and 10; hereinafter “each of the instant product guide”) in order to provide information on the profit structure, risk factors, etc. of each of the instant funds, and delivered it to Defendant’s future deposit management. Each of the instant product guide contains fund characteristics and investment risk factors as follows.

본문내 포함된 표 1. 펀드개요 ◎ 신탁계약서 주요 내용 펀드유형 증권투자신탁(재간접형), 사모형, 단위형, 폐쇄형 펀드특징 국내 AA등급 이상의 우량채권과 할인채 구조의 A등급 이상 미국보험증권을 편입자산으로 하는 해외보험증권(TP)펀드에 투자하여 안정적 투자수익 추구 투자위험등급 3등급: 중간위험 * 이 집합투자기구는 자산의 대부분을 채권 및 보험증권을 편입자산으로 하는 해외집합투자증권 등에 분산투자하므로 위험등급이 중간 수준인 3등급으로 분류 목표수익률 연 5.30% 수준 ◎ 투자대상 TP펀드 특징 채권의 대안적 투자 보험증권투자는 미국의 보험증권에 투자하여 안정성과 상대적 고수익을 추구하여, 채권의 대안적 투자성격을 지님 높은 포트폴리오 분산투자 효과 보험증권투자는 주식, 채권 등 전통적 자산과 상관관계가 낮아 전통자산과의 포트폴리오 분산효과가 큼 새롭게 부상하는 투자자산 투자은행, 연기금, 보험사 등 주요 투자자들의 참여로 보험증권투자가 새로운 투자자산군으로 부상 적절한 투자 타이밍 최근 금융위기의 여파에 따른 투자수익률의 상승, 보험사의 고지의무 적용(중도해약 신청 시 제3차 매도가능 사실의 고지) 등으로 거래가능 보험증권의 공급증가 금감원 등록펀드에 투자 투자대상펀드가 역외펀드(Off-shore Fund)이나 금감원에 정식 등록된 펀드임

본문내 포함된 표 3. 보험증권 거래시장 ◎ 보험증권 거래시장이란? · 65세 이상의 보험가입자가 일시 목돈마련, 보험금 불입능력 상실 등의 사유로 자신이 가입한 보험증권을 보험사에 중도 해약하지 않고 유통시장을 통해 타인에게 매도하는 시장 · 매수자는 매매 시점부터 보험료 납입의 의무를 지며, 동시에 보험 원가입자 사망 시 보험금 수령 권리취득 · 유통시장 매각금액이 중도 해약금보다 훨씬 높음 · 미국에서는 1911년 대법원 판결 이후 생명보험을 “양도할 수 있는/권리 이전 가능한” 자산으로 간주, 보험계약자의 의사에 따라 매매나 양도가 가능한 자산으로 인정하여 활발히 거래가 되고 있음 ◎ 보험증권 시장 전망 · 미국생명보험시장 규모 총 26조 달러 수준 · 미국의 65세 노령자가 보유한 보험증권 총액: 1조 4,000억 달러 수준 · 2011년 TLPs 거래 시장규모 300억 달러 → 2030년 1,610억 달러 예상 ◎ 보험증권 시장 성장의 주요 Key Point · 타 자산과의 낮은 상관관계 · 안정적 수익 대비 낮은 위험수준 · 금융위기 상황에서도 타격이 크지 않았음

본문내 포함된 표 6. 투자위험 ◎ 주요투자 위험 수익률변동 리스크 · 기대수명 산정 오류에 따른 수익률 하락위험 · Risk를 낮추기 위해 특정 보험증권에 집중하지 않고 분산된 포트폴리오 구성 · 투자의 불확실성이 적은 Life Settlement에 주로 투자 · 의학발달로 인한 평균수명 증가(Longevity Risk) 보험증권 거래관련 · 보험증권은 장외시장의 개별기관 간 거래로서 일반 OTC 거래와 마찬가지로 주식 및 채권에 비해 환금성이 떨어질 수 있음 보험회사 신용 리스크 · 보험증권을 발행한 보험회사가 부도가 나는 경우 -주정부 법률에 의해 최고 500,000달러까지 원리금 지급이 보장(통상적 300,000달러) -그 이상의 금액은 보험회사들이 적립하는 충당금에 의해 지급될 수 있음 -평가기관의 신용등급 A 이상인 우량 보험회사의 증권만을 선별 매입 Legal Risk · 매입하려는 보험증권의 구체적인 계약조건에 대한 충분한 검토가 없었거나 혹은 거래 과정상의 사기 등 문제로 소송 등 분쟁이 야기될 가능성 · 시장 경험이 풍부한 전문가에 투자를 위임함으로써 Risk를 줄일 수 있음 투자원본에 대한 손실위험 이 투자신탁은 실적배당상품으로 은행 예금과 달리 예금보험공사의 보호를 받지 못함에 따라 투자원리금 전액이 보장 또는 보호되지 않습니다. 따라서 투자원본의 전부 또는 일부에 대한 손실의 위험이 존재하며 투자금액의 손실 내지 감소의 위험은 전적으로 투자자가 부담하게 되고, 자산운용회사나 판매회사 등 어떤 당사자도 투자손실에 대하여 책임을 지지 아니합니다. 환율변동 위험 이 투자신탁은 해외투자로 인한 환율변동 위험에 대해 환율변동위험 감소를 위하여 기본적으로 환헷지 전략을 수행하고자 합니다. 그러나 시황 또는 해당 통화 펀더멘탈 및 헷지 수단 등의 영향으로 투자신탁재산 일부 또는 전부가 환위험에 노출될 수 있으며, 이러한 외부적인 요건을 고려하여 운용역의 판단으로 일정기간 환위험에 노출될 수 있습니다. 신용 위험 본 투자신탁이 편입하는 수익증권의 투자대상자산의 원리금 지급 등이 제때 수행되지 못할 경우 신용위험이 발생할 수 있으며, 동 투자신탁에서 추구하는 목적을 달성하지 못할 수 있습니다. 유동성 위험 이 투자신탁은 계약기간 종료일 이전에는 이 투자신탁의 수익증권을 환매할 수 없습니다. 또한, 투자신탁에서 투자하는 투자대상 수익증권 및 동 수익증권의 투자종목의 유동성 부족, 해외자산에 투자함에 따른 환금성에 제약이 발생할 수 있으며, 투자신탁재산의 가치하락을 초래할 수 있습니다. 오퍼레이션 위험 해외투자의 경우 국내투자와 달리 복잡한 결제과정 및 현금 운용과정의 위험이 국내투자보다 더 높습니다. 또한, 국제결제와 관련되어 송금지연 등 사유발생 시 만기금액(환매금액) 지급 연기 가능성이 있습니다. 이자율 변동 위험 일반적으로 채권이나 기업어음 등의 가격은 이자율 변동에 따라 자본이익이 발생합니다. 따라서 투자대상 자산을 만기까지 보유하지 않고 중도에 매도하는 경우에는 시장상황에 따라 이익 또는 손실이 발생할 수 있습니다. 신용 위험 투자신탁으로 보유하고 있는 채권이나 기업어음 등의 경우 발행회사의 재무상황, 신용상태 등의 악화로 신용등급이 하락하는 등의 신용사건이 발생하는 경우 신탁재산의 가격이 하락하여 손실이 발생할 수 있습니다. 외국과세에 의한 과세 위험 이 투자신탁은 해외자산에 투자하므로 특정 외국의 세법에 의한 배당소득세, 양도소득세 등이 부과될 수 있으며, 향후 특정 외국의 세법변경으로 높은 세율이 적용될 경우 배당소득, 세후 양도소득 등이 예상보다 감소할 수 있습니다. 기타 본 투자신탁은 외화표시 채권과 해외 수익증권에 주로 투자하는 집합투자기구로서, 투자대상 유가증권의 가격 움직임이 전체 펀드수익에 크게 영향을 주며, 채권가격의 변동, Global 경제, 환율변동 등이 펀드 성과에 영향을 줄 수 있습니다. 투자결정을 하기 전에 반드시 상품 내용을 충분히 인지하신 후 투자여부를 결정하시기 바랍니다.

3) On December 11, 2012 and December 12, 2012, in order to review whether to conclude a consignment contract, Defendant’s future deposit management (hereinafter “Defendant’s future deposit management”) held Defendant Uijin Asset Management and MPS and meetings. At that meeting, Nonparty 1 explained the Defendants’ employees on the content and characteristics of the instant subparagraph 2 fund.

4) On December 13, 2012, Defendant future financial treatment held a subcommittee on financial products internally to determine whether to conclude a consignment contract. At the above meeting, the foregoing opinion states that the U.K. financial supervisory authority’s guidelines are referred to in the data prepared and circulated by Defendant Future Treatment Risk Management Headquarters, and that “it is deemed desirable to sell to professional investors only when considering the possibility of the principal loss of insurance policies and the possibility of the principal loss of insurance policies, and the case of the UK.”

5) Nonparty 1 explained the Fund No. 2 prior to the meeting of the said financial product subcommittee on the day of the meeting and responded to the question of the members of the financial product subcommittee. As a result of the voting of the financial product subcommittee held after the explanation and answer to questions, Defendant future deposit treatment decided to conclude a consignment contract with Defendant Jin Asset Management with respect to the Fund No. 2.

6) On December 13, 2012, the Defendants concluded a consignment contract with respect to the instant fund No. 2, and subsequently, around February 2013, the Defendants concluded a consignment contract with respect to the instant fund No. 3, the instant fund No. 4, the instant fund No. 5, and the instant fund No. 6, around May 2013, around July 2013.

D. The Plaintiff’s accession to each of the instant funds

1) From December 26, 2012, Nonparty 2, who was in charge of the Plaintiff’s fund operation from around January 2013, requested the Plaintiff to make a stable recommendation of financial investment instruments in the future of the Defendant on the grounds that the Plaintiff was a fund to promote the welfare of workers. On January 17, 2013, Nonparty 3, an employee of the Defendant future deposit management, introduced to Nonparty 2 a stable financial investment instrument that is the principal security type, and Nonparty 2 demanded the recommendation of other financial investment instruments, Nonparty 3 issued the product guide of the instant fund No. 3 while soliciting Nonparty 3 to subscribe to the instant fund. Nonparty 3 did not mention Nonparty 2 at the time of the instant investment recommendation as the instant fund’s fixed deposit, and did not explain that the instant financial investment instruments or the instant financial investment instruments were more 5% or 5.6% (4% or 0.3% or more of the amount of deposit.

2) Around January 21, 2013, Nonparty 2 considered that Nonparty 3’s superior, like the Defendant’s explanation of the Defendant’s future deposit treatment, was a financial investment instrument that could expect the Plaintiff to subscribe to the instant subparagraph 3 fund and more revenues than fixed deposits. The Plaintiff purchased KRW 5 billion of the instant fund beneficiary certificates from Defendant’s future deposit treatment on February 14, 2013.

3) Subsequent to that, Nonparty 3 recommended Nonparty 2 to subscribe to each of the instant funds, and explained the same contents as at the time of subscribing to the instant fund. Accordingly, the Plaintiff purchased each of the instant funds KRW 3.6 billion from Defendant’s future deposit account on April 12, 2013, KRW 3.6 billion from Defendant’s future deposit account, KRW 5 billion from May 10, 2013, KRW 2 billion, and KRW 3.6 billion from the instant fund beneficiary certificates on July 12, 2013, and subscribed to the instant fund.

4) At the time of joining each of the above funds, Nonparty 4, as the Plaintiff’s agent at the time of signing the investment risk notification statement (Evidence A No. 4, 6, 9, and 11) with respect to the sale of private equity funds. At the time of signing the investment risk notification statement, Nonparty 4, as the Plaintiff’s agent at each of the above funds, explained that “the name, type, purpose of investment, assets subject to investment, major investment strategies, and investment risks such as the name of the investor’s check items of investment products, the amount of principal is not guaranteed, and the maximum loss amount, such as investment risks, expenses to be invested by the customer, customer, or funds continuously provided to investors, taxation of investment income, method of redemption of investment funds, base date and date of redemption, redemption fees, redemption fees and redemption fees, and self-responsibility principle of investors’ own responsibility (the investment in products was conducted under the investor’s own judgment and responsibility, and understood the contents thereof,” Nonparty 4 explained that “I will fully understand the Plaintiff’s name and explain the terms “I will.”

5) The Defendant future set up a survey on the investment inclination of the customer when recommending to make investment in financial investment instruments, and based on the results of the survey, the Defendant future set up risk preference scores that the Defendant future set up on each of the items of the survey and classified the customer’s investment inclination according to the scores. On January 23, 2013, before the Plaintiff’s establishment of the Fund No. 3, the Plaintiff analyzed the Plaintiff’s future survey on the customer investment inclination of the Defendant future set forth in the “income status: A state of income is anticipated to have a certain amount of income, but to be reduced or unstable in the future; investment experience: Low risk goods (credit fund, financial bond, company bond with high credit, principal guarantee type ES, etc.); attitude toward risks: The principal is more important, the total investment period exceeds five years: derivatives investment period; and the derivatives investment period: at least three years.” The Plaintiff’s future research results analyzed the Plaintiff’s future treatment in the future, thereby classifying it as the Plaintiff’s first risk class (class 1).

E. Suspension of repurchase of the instant TPP fund

1) On April 19, 2013, after the Plaintiff’s subscription to the instant TPP fund, the board of directors of the PEL company, which operated the instant TPP fund, decided to suspend all redemption of the instant TPP fund after April 2013 and decided to allow redemption at the time of recovery of liquidity in the future (hereinafter “instant redemption suspension decision”), and notified it to the Defendant UBC on May 20, 2013. On May 20, 2013, the TPPL company changed the registration of the fact that “the instant TPP fund was suspended” to the Financial Supervisory Service on May 20, 2013.

2) However, Defendant Uijin Asset Management did not immediately notify the Defendant’s future deposit management of the instant decision to discontinue repurchase, and notified the Defendant’s future deposit management of the instant decision to discontinue repurchase on August 16, 2013, after the Plaintiff’s subscription to the Fund Nos. 5 and 6.

F. Partial repayment of investment funds of each of the instant funds

1) The Plaintiff received KRW 2,650,001 on March 14, 2014 (in the case of the instant investment fund No. 4, 2070,865,108 on May 14, 2014, the maturity date for the instant investment fund; KRW 2,021,373,242 on September 12, 2014, 2014, with the exception of the instant TP fund portion, which cannot be repaid at maturity due to the instant decision to discontinue repurchase, from Defendant’s future deposit management; and KRW 5,583,280 on March 14, 2014, with respect to the instant investment fund No. 6, the Plaintiff received each of the instant investment funds with the interest and dividend amount withheld at KRW 2,026,956,522 on September 12, 2014 (the sales amount prior to settlement).

2) In addition, at the general meeting of beneficiaries of the fund in this case, the fund in question received KRW 1,813,520,000 from Defendant Future 5 by exercising the right to claim redemption on April 1, 2014, without consenting to the above decision of the general meeting of beneficiaries, and by exercising the right to claim redemption, the fund in this case received KRW 1,813,520,000 from Defendant Future 5 as repayment of the total investment amount of the fund in this case.

[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap's testimony, Eul's testimony, non-party 2, non-party 4, and non-party 3's testimony, non-party 5 and non-party 1's testimony, the non-party 5 and the non-party 1's testimony, the non-party 1's testimony, the non-party 4 and the non-party 3's testimony, the non-party 5 and the non-party 1's testimony, the non-party 1's testimony, the whole purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Relevant statutes;

Attached Table 1 is as stated in the "relevant statutes".

3. The plaintiff's assertion

A. Main assertion

Before the Plaintiff subscribed to each of the instant funds, the Defendants issued guidelines with the U.K. financial authority to warn the risks of U.K. investment goods, such as TPP funds, unredeemed 45% to 50% of the collective investment property in each of the instant funds, and the unredeemed 40% of the unredeemed 40% of the unredeemed 50% of the unredeemed 50% of the unredeemed 50% of the unredeemed 50% of the unredeemed 60% of the unredeemed 50% of the unredeemed 60% of the unredeemed 40% of the unredeemed 60% of the unredeemed 40% of the unredeemed 50% of the unredeemed 40% of the unredeemed 50% of the unredeemed 50% of the unredeemed 50% of the unredeemed 50% of the unredeemed 50% of the TPP, and the Plaintiff was jointly aware of the 6th 3rd 6th 5th 3rd 2 of the TPP 2013 of the TPP.

B. Preliminary assertion

1) Under Article 46(3) of the Capital Markets Act, the Defendants are prohibited from making investment recommendations to ordinary investors in light of the investment purpose, financial status, and investment experience, etc. However, the instant TPP fund is registered with the Financial Supervisory Service as an overseas collective investment scheme for professional investors, and thus, its beneficiary certificates are not sold to ordinary investors. Despite the fact that the beneficiary certificates of each of the instant funds, which make indirect investment in the instant TPP fund, are not sold to ordinary investors, the Defendants violated the suitability principle under the Capital Markets Act by soliciting the Plaintiff, an ordinary investor, to join the instant fund. Even if the sale is possible, each of the instant TPP fund, which made indirect investment in the instant TPP fund, is not suitable for the Plaintiff, which is an investor with a stable tendency to pursue the guarantee of principal, thereby violating the suitability principle under the Capital Markets Act.

2) Pursuant to Article 47(1) and (3) of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, an explanation should be given to ordinary investors to understand the contents of the financial investment instrument and the risks associated with the investment. No explanation should be made by false or distorted (referring to providing a conclusive judgment on an uncertain matter or providing a notice that is likely to mislead or mislead an uncertain matter to be certain) or omitting a material fact that may have a significant impact on the investor’s reasonable investment decision or the value of the pertinent financial investment instrument; nor should the Defendants provide a conclusive judgment on an uncertain matter when recommending investors as stipulated in Article 49 subparag. 2 of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, or inform investors of the fact that they would be able to mislead an uncertain matter to be certain when recommending investors to subscribe to each of the instant funds. However, the Defendants failed to explain to the Plaintiff the U.K. supervisory authority’s guidelines and various cases where the risks of U.S. life insurance products are realized when recommending the investment profits of each of the instant funds, and provided a clear explanation or explanation that each of the instant funds would be inconsistent with the duty of explanation.

3) The Plaintiff is deemed to have suffered damages equivalent to the amount stated in the above Item A, due to the Defendants’ violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act. Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable for damages to the Plaintiff pursuant to Articles 48(1), 64(1), and 185 of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act.

4. Judgment on the main argument

A. Whether he/she is aware of the first fact

The U.K. Financial Supervisory Authority’s guidelines, such as that the product is complicated and high risk in the U.S. life insurance investment product, such as the instant TPP fund, were announced. Before the U.K. Financial Supervisory Authority’s guidelines, eydat case has already been announced that the risks of U.K. life insurance products in the U.K. have been realized and that a large number of investors have suffered a large loss due to the suspension of redemption of U.S. life insurance products. In Korea, around June 2011, the U.K. Asset Management case occurred. After the U.K. Financial Supervisory Authority’s announcement of the U.K. Financial Guidelines, the transaction of U.S. life insurance products was interrupted by investors’ large repurchase request, which would have a large risk of investment in U.S. life insurance products.

However, considering the following circumstances, considering that Eul’s evidence Nos. 11, 12, Eul’s evidence Nos. 20, and Eul’s testimony by Nonparty 1 as a witness of the political party, the aforementioned facts alone are difficult to deem that the Defendants created each of the funds of this case with the intent to deception the facts No. 1 or recommended investment to the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion of deception of the facts No. 1 is without merit.

① On December 11, 2012 and December 12, 2012, at the meeting of the Defendants’ employees and Nonparty 1, 2012, there was a discussion on the instant TPP funds similar to the instant TPP funds, such as the instant U.K. Financial supervisory authority’s guidelines or eydata case, and the mountain, Asset Management case. At the time, Nonparty 1 offered to the Defendants’ employees the following: “The U.K. Financial supervisory authority’s guidelines are merely a kind of guidelines, rather than statutes or orders, and the content of the guidelines is not appropriate to sell the products to individual investors who are retail investors, not to mention the U.S. Life Insurance Products itself. If most of the investment assets invest in TPP funds, the funds should be sold only to professional investors, or if it is less than 50% of the funds are invested in TPP funds, it should be explained that the funds were re-investment in the structure of the instant TPP funds, without consideration of the characteristics of the TPP funds’ respective 3-year investors’ respective request for redemption and redemption fees.

② On December 13, 2012, at Defendant 1’s future financial product management subcommittee, Nonparty 6 (Chairperson of the Financial Products Sub-Committee), Nonparty 7, the head of the Product Finance Headquarters 8, Nonparty 9, Nonparty 10, compliance officer (or members of the above Financial Products Sub-Committee), Nonparty 12, and Non-Party 13 of the Risk Management Team, and Non-Party 1 of the Risk Management Team’s Head of the Product Planning Team, were not able to increase the rate of return from Defendant 1’s future financial market. The purpose of this paper is to explain that “The U.K. financial supervisory authority did not have superior value in the case of corporate investors and would have sufficient risk to subscribe to individual investors,” and that “The company did not always have been 5% of the total liquidity interest rate so that other domestic investors would not have been registered and applied to the Financial Market at least 4% of the latest change rate of profit.”

③ The Defendants reviewed Nonparty 1’s above explanation and provision of each of the instant funds at each of the above meetings, and concluded a consignment contract after establishing each of the instant funds. Considering the process and circumstances of the creation of each of the instant funds, even if the Defendants did not notify the Plaintiff of the investment losses in the U.K. Guidelines or U.S. Life Insurance Products, it is difficult to recognize that the Defendants had the intent to deceive the Plaintiff in the creation and sale of each of the instant funds.

B. Whether the second fact is deceiving

As seen after the instant TPP fund was registered as a foreign collective investment scheme for professional investors pursuant to Article 279(2) of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, it is not allowed to directly sell the instant TPP fund’s beneficiary certificates to the Plaintiff, who is an ordinary investor. The Defendant’s future TPPC Headquarters expressed its opinion that it is desirable for the Fund to sell only to professional investors as seen earlier. However, each of the instant funds, which is a privately placed fund for not more than 49 investors, is a privately placed fund for not more than 49 investors, is not allowed to exclude the Plaintiff from the scope of the instant TPP’s beneficiary certificates under Article 271(3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (amended by Act No. 1348, Jul. 24, 2015; hereinafter the same shall apply) upon delegation, and thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant TPP fund was allowed to be sold within the scope of each of the instant TPP fund’s own investment securities without any other general investors’ consent.

(c) Whether the third and fourth facts are deceiving;

1) In order to be deemed that Defendant future deposit treatment had deceptioned the third fact, it should have known the Plaintiff’s future deposit management prior to the Plaintiff’s accession to the Fund No. 5 and 6, and in order to be deemed that Defendant future deposit management knew the fact that the Plaintiff’s instant decision to suspend redemption was made prior to the Plaintiff’s accession to the Fund No. 6 of this case, the Plaintiff’s future deposit management should have known the fact that the modification was made pursuant to the instant decision to suspend redemption. There was no evidence to acknowledge this, and rather, Defendant future deposit management was notified of the Plaintiff’s decision to suspend redemption from Defendant Ujin Asset Management around August 16, 2013, which was after the Plaintiff’s accession to the Fund No. 5 and 6 of this case, and it was merely known of this case’s decision to suspend redemption. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s future deposit management was without merit.

2) On April 19, 2013, Defendant Jinjin Asset Management received notice of the instant decision to suspend the redemption from the PEL company. However, the following facts are acknowledged by adding the entire purport of the pleadings to the testimony of Non-Party 5 and Non-Party 1 as seen earlier: (i) Defendant Jinjin Asset Management Co., Ltd., upon the establishment of each of the instant funds, did not express their respective letters of commitment (as indicated in subparagraph 7-1 through 6, and each of the documents named by Non-Party 1 as named by the relevant parties, it is difficult to view that Non-Party 1 had actually promised to repurchase the said letter of commitment or otherwise had no different intention; and (ii) Defendant Jinjin Asset Management Co., Ltd., Ltd., upon receipt of notice of the fact that Non-Party 1 could have known Non-Party 1 of the instant decision to suspend the redemption as stated in the evidence of Non-Party 1’s explanation that it could have been possible to acknowledge Non-Party 1’s investment in the instant funds.

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, the plaintiff's primary argument that was caused by deception of the defendants is without merit.

5. Judgment on the conjunctive assertion

A. Whether the Plaintiff is an ordinary investor

In full view of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to see that the Plaintiff is not a professional investor under the Capital Markets Act, but an ordinary investor, taking into account the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 2, 50, and 65 as well as the testimony of Nonparty 2 of the first instance trial.

① On April 5, 2009, the Financial Services Commission interpreted the interpretation of the provisions related to professional investors under the Capital Markets Act as “professional investors in Article 10(3)12 of the Enforcement Decree of the Capital Markets Act,” which read, “The Fund established pursuant to the Act and the corporation that manages and operates the Fund is not established pursuant to any other Act, such as the National Pension Fund under the National Pension Act and the Public Officials Pension Fund under the Public Officials Pension Act, but is not a fund permitted pursuant to the Act on the Establishment and Operation of Public Interest Corporations.” According to the aforementioned interpretation, the said interpretation should be deemed to be a “fund established pursuant to the said Act” under the said Enforcement Decree only when it is established pursuant to the said Act without any separate establishment act or authorization or permission of the competent authorities. Since the Plaintiff was established by the establishment act and authorization of the Minister of Employment and Labor under Articles 50 and 52 of the Framework Act on Labor Welfare, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to be a “fund established pursuant to the Act” under Article 10(3)12 of the Enforcement Decree of the said Act.

② According to Article 9(5) of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, a professional investor is required to be “an investor capable of reducing risks arising from investment in light of expertise in financial investment instruments, the size of assets owned, etc.” However, the board of directors, which is the Plaintiff’s investment decision-making body, is composed of six equal number of labor and management officers, and the directors are assigned to the executive officers of the labor union, and the directors do not have expertise in the decision-making on financial investment. The Plaintiff’s primary purpose is to expand and improve welfare of employees of the Korea Expressway Corporation, thereby stabilizing workers’ livelihood and promoting welfare. The Plaintiff’s primary purpose is to determine the scale and object of welfare support, such as subsidization of housing purchase funds, support of employee’s livelihood, support of purchase of employee shares, support of expenses necessary for the management of financial products, etc. In other words, the Plaintiff does not have the primary purpose of creating profits from the operation of financial products. In addition, in the case of the National Pension Fund established under the National Pension Fund Act, the National Pension Fund Operation Committee established under Article 103 of the Public Officials Pension Act (Public Pension Act).

③ It is not necessarily a professional investor who is not an individual investor but an individual investor, and the Defendant future deposit treatment also classified the Plaintiff as an ordinary investor at the time of selling each of the instant funds.

B. Defendants’ status and duty to protect investors under the Capital Markets Act

1) As seen earlier, Defendant Uijin Asset Management is a collective investment business entity that created each of the instant funds, and Defendant Uijin Asset Management is an investment trader that sold the beneficiary certificates of each of the instant funds to the Plaintiff. A financial investment business entity, including a collective investment business entity and an investment trader, may be deemed to have engaged in “investment solicitation” as prescribed by Article 9(4) of the Capital Markets Act. In such a case, even if it is not directly entered into a contract with a customer on a financial investment instrument, it bears the obligation to comply with the suitability principle under the said Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, to explain and to prohibit unfair solicitation (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Da217498, Jan. 29, 2015).

2) Pursuant to Articles 6(5), 123, and 124 of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, a collective investment business entity is in a position to acquire, dispose of, and distribute to investors the assets with property value without an investor’s daily management instruction, by acquiring, disposing of, and distributing the results therefrom. A collective investment business entity shall not engage in reliance on the information provided by a third party in connection with the assets subject to management of the investment trust property and provide the company or investors with such information as is. The collective investment business entity should reasonably investigate matters concerning the profit structure and risk factors of the investment trust, including the authenticity of such information, and shall provide the company and investors with correct information. If it is unclear or insufficient after a reasonable investigation, the entity is obligated to inform the distribution company or investors of such circumstances clearly (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2004Da53197, Sept. 6, 2007; 2014Da13197, Dec. 14, 2015).

3) Pursuant to Article 6(2) of the Capital Markets Act, an investment trader is engaged in the business of selling and purchasing financial investment instruments, issuing and underwriting securities, or soliciting an offer, offering, and accepting an offer thereof on its own account. An investment trader is aware of the content of the investment prospectus provided by the collective investment business entity; and the meaning of an investment trader is clearly understood by a collective investment business entity, with an accurate explanation from the collective investment business entity; and explain to investors the method of operating the investment trust, the investment plan, and profits and risks arising therefrom so that investors can understand the investment trust in an accurate and balanced manner; and the mere fact that the investment trust provided by the collective investment business entity is aware that the content of the sales assistance data provided by the collective investment business entity is accurate, reasonable, and dependent on the explanation on the investment trust (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2004Da53197, Sept. 6, 2007; 2010Da76368, Jul. 28, 2011;

4) Although Defendant Jinjin Asset Management, which is the founder of each of the instant funds, did not directly introduce or consult each of the instant funds to the Plaintiff, as seen earlier, Defendant Jinjin Asset Management prepared a product guide for each of the instant funds, and Nonparty 3, an employee Nonparty 3 of Defendant Jinjin Asset Management, who recommended the Plaintiff’s employee Nonparty 2 to invest in each of the instant funds, presented and deliver each of the instant product guide in the name of Defendant Jinjin Asset Management. In addition, according to the witness Nonparty 2’s testimony and arguments in the first instance trial, Nonparty 3 first presented the product guide for Nonparty 2’s request for more specific data, and Nonparty 2 issued the entire product guide for each of the instant funds under the name of Defendant Uinjin Asset Management, and did not intentionally deliver other data than the product guide for each of the instant funds. According to this, it appears that Nonparty 3, an investor, as an investor, prepared a product guide for investment in the future, not only the direct explanation of the Defendant’s employees, but also the content and content of the product guide for investment.

5) Therefore, Defendant Jinjin Asset Management, a collective investment business entity that created each of the instant funds, as well as Defendant Ujin Asset Management, as an investment trader that directly sold the beneficiary certificates of each of the instant funds, bears the duty to protect investors as seen above, such as the duty to observe the suitability principle under the Capital Markets Act, the duty to explain, and the duty to prohibit unfair solicitation.

C. Whether the principles of suitability are violated

As seen earlier, it cannot be deemed as prohibited from selling the beneficiary certificates of each of the funds of this case to the Plaintiff, who is an ordinary investor. However, considering the following circumstances acknowledged as seen earlier and the aforementioned facts and the overall purport of the pleadings with respect to the testimony of Nonparty 2, the witness of the first instance trial, including the Plaintiff’s investment purpose, status of property, and investment experience, the Defendants are reasonable to deem that the Defendants recommended the Plaintiff, who is an ordinary investor, to make an investment in financial investment instruments inappropriate in light of the Plaintiff’s investment purpose, investment situation, and investment experience, etc. Therefore, the Defendants violated the suitability principle under the Capital Markets Act at the time of recommending the Plaintiff to make an investment in each of the funds of this case.

① As a result of the survey on the customer investment tendency conducted by the Plaintiff in the Defendant’s future deposit management before joining each of the instant funds, it was classified as “investors in the risk preference type (class 1 of the product class), but this is nothing more than that classified according to the risk preference scores given by the Defendant’s future deposit management itself to an individual item. In fact, at the time of the survey, the Plaintiff is anticipated to have a certain amount of income but to have a decrease or unstable future, and investment experience is anticipated to have a low risk product (credit type fund, financial bond, company bond with a high credit, principal bond, etc.), and attitude toward risk: The Plaintiff’s investment return is considered, but the principal is more important.”

② As seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s board of directors comprised of six equal number of labor-management members does not have little expertise in making decisions on investment in financial investment instruments, which are only a part of the board of directors’ functions. The Plaintiff’s employees are general employees of the Korea Highway Corporation, which is not financial experts, and do not seem to have the expertise in financial

③ In principle, “the safety of an intra-company labor-welfare fund manual” published by the Ministry of Employment and Labor and the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare (the Plaintiff’s supervisory office), stated “the operation of an intra-company labor-welfare fund in high profitability but high risk management methods may impair the continuity of the intended business due to damage to the intra-company labor-welfare when operating the intra-company labor-welfare fund.” As such, when operating the fund in assets with low liquidity, it is difficult to utilize the intra-company labor-welfare fund for the purpose of urgent funding if necessary. Therefore, it is difficult to use it for the purpose of urgent funding.”

④ In fact, even if the return on investment is somewhat low, the Plaintiff appears to have subscribed to and operate the fund mainly on the goods whose substantial amount of principal is guaranteed, such as the securities determined in connection with changes in the stock price index, and the securities determined in connection with the price of individual stocks or the stock price index (financial products that determine the return on investment by linking the stock price or the stock price index).

⑤ At the time of the Financial Instruments Sub-Committee of December 13, 2012, the Defendant’s future financial treatment presented an opinion that “In consideration of the complex and high risk of the instant TP fund, each of the instant funds that make indirect investments in the instant TPP fund is desirable to sell to professional investors only.”

D. Whether the duty of explanation and prohibition of unfair solicitation have been violated

In full view of the aforementioned facts and the facts as seen earlier, Gap evidence Nos. 3, 5, 8, 10, and 50, and the testimony of non-party 2 of the first instance trial witness, which are acknowledged by adding the whole purport of the pleadings, the defendants did not explain to the plaintiff the facts that the plaintiff's reasonable investment decision or the guidance issued by the financial supervisory authority of the United Kingdom, which may have a significant impact on the decision on the subscription of each of the funds of this case, or that the investors of the U.S. life insurance products did not explain the various cases and other important matters that may have a significant impact on the decision on the subscription of the fund of this case, and the decision on the suspension of repurchase and the modification thereof, which are important matters that may have a significant impact on the decision on the subscription of the fund of this case, although the occurrence of investment profits of each of the funds of this case is unclear, it violates the duty of explanation by explaining or making a conclusive decision, which is similar to the time deposit of this case, and thus, it is reasonable to deem that the defendants committed unfair solicitation.

① The Plaintiff’s employees Nonparty 4 confirmed that “investment risk” was sufficiently explained and understood on all inspection items of each of the instant funds, along with the characteristics of each of the instant funds, in each of the instant product instructions prepared and issued by Defendant Uijin Asset Management Co., Ltd., and Nonparty 4 prepared a written confirmation of investment risk notification.”

② However, Nonparty 3, the Plaintiff’s employees Nonparty 3 issued each of the instant product instructions to Nonparty 2 with respect to each of the instant funds, and explained that, as the beneficiary certificates of each of the instant funds are stable, such as fixed deposits, and the profit-making amounting to 5% or 5.6% (5.3% 【 0.3%) higher than that of fixed deposits, it is a financial investment instrument with a strong nature of fixed deposits. Since the investment period was set at one year and one month, it is appropriate for the Plaintiff to operate the business with contributions and interest income for one year.

③ Nonparty 3 asked Nonparty 2 to Nonparty 3 “whether the return on investment is a fund product?” Nonparty 3 asked Nonparty 2 to the effect that “The return on investment is only 【 0.3% or less from the return on investment.”

④ As seen earlier, each product description of each of the instant funds is subdivided into and entered in the investment risk by each risk item, but is merely a general content. Meanwhile, the fact that each of the instant funds is registered as a foreign collective investment scheme for professional investors, such as the instant TPP funds, and the fact that the instant TPP funds are complicated and high risk in U.S. life insurance products, such as the instant TPP funds, and thus are inappropriate for retail investors, was announced by the U.K. financial supervisory authority. There was no reference as to the fact that the instant TPP fund’s investment risk was limited to the redemption of U.S. life insurance products, or that the Plaintiff suffered losses on several occasions due to the investor’s request for large-scale redemption due to the realization of the risk or the announcement of the guidelines. Nonparty 3 did not explain the foregoing to Nonparty 2.

⑤ Nonparty 2: (a) reported that each of the product instructions of this case included “the risk of loss to the original of the investment” in the relevant description; and (b) requested Nonparty 3 to provide specific explanation; and (c) explained that Nonparty 3 was not likely to be included in the ordinary financial investment instrument description.

④ On April 19, 2013, prior to the creation of the instant fund, Defendant Uijin Asset Management notified the PEL company of the instant decision to suspend the repurchase, and immediately notified the Defendant’s future deposit treatment or the Plaintiff of the decision to discontinue the repurchase. Since each of the above funds was established, Defendant Uijin Asset Management was only known on August 16, 2013.

(e) Occurrence of and limitation on liability for damages;

1) The Defendants’ liability for damages and damages

The Defendants breached the duty to comply with the suitability principle under Article 46 of the Capital Markets Act, the duty to explain under Article 47, and the duty to prohibit unfair solicitation under Article 49 of the said Act against the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages incurred by the Defendants due to the Defendants’ breach of their respective duties pursuant to Articles 48(1), 64(1), and 185 of the said Act. The amount of damages is presumed to be “the total amount of money, etc. paid or payable by an ordinary investor due to the acquisition of a financial investment instrument minuss the total amount of money, etc. collected or recoverable by the ordinary investor by disposal of the financial investment instrument or by any other means,” pursuant to Article 48(2) of the said Act.

As seen earlier, the Plaintiff paid the purchase price of each beneficiary certificate KRW 5 billion, KRW 3.6 billion, KRW 5 billion, KRW 3.6 billion, KRW 5 billion, KRW 5 billion, KRW 2 billion, KRW 5.6 billion, and KRW 3.6 billion, KRW 2,650,000, and KRW 2,070, KRW 465,08, and KRW 5,813,520,00, and KRW 2,021,373,242, and KRW 6, and KRW 5,000, KRW 5,000, and KRW 5,813,520,00, and KRW 6, and KRW 2,021, KRW 373,242, as indicated in the attached Table, the sum of damages suffered by the Plaintiff from the purchase price of each of the instant beneficiary certificates is KRW 5,64,241,69, as indicated in the “damage on Loss Calculation.”

(1) The Plaintiff’s legal interest claim as to the remainder of each invested principal is also a legal interest claim from the date of investment. However, as seen earlier, the claim for unjust enrichment following the cancellation of a legal act by deception is without merit, and the Plaintiff’s claim for damages under the Capital Markets Act is with merit. Thus, the Plaintiff’s contract for sales of each of the instant investment securities does not become retroactively null and void,

2) Limitation on liability

Meanwhile, according to the aforementioned facts, the Plaintiff should have carefully examined and invested the concept of investment trust or the content, structure of profit and loss, and investment risk of the trust product invested under the principle of self-responsibility, and invested them. It is negligent in doing so, each of the funds of this case, unlike other financial investment instruments, is an investment product that is a fund for the life insurance policy of the United States. However, it seems that Defendant’s future deposit management employees purchased the beneficiary certificates of each of the funds of this case depending on the horse or product guide without due process of collecting prior information and examining relevant regulations. In calculating the amount of damages, the Plaintiff’s negligence, etc. should be considered.

In calculating the Plaintiff’s negligence ratio, the Plaintiff’s primary purpose of establishment is to stabilize the workers’ livelihood and promote the welfare through expansion and durability of workers’ welfare, and the Plaintiff mainly joined a financial product with a high safety and liquidity according to such purpose of establishment, and operated the Fund, and the Defendants, a financial expert, recommended the Plaintiff to make an investment in financial investment instruments inappropriate for the Plaintiff even though they were well aware of the Plaintiff’s investment experience, investment inclination, etc., and did not properly explain or distorted important matters, etc., the Plaintiff’s negligence is no more than the Defendants’ negligence. Accordingly, it is reasonable to view the Plaintiff’s negligence ratio as 30% and limit the Defendants’ liability to 70%.

3) Evaluation of negligence against the Defendants

The defendants asserts that even if they assume joint tort liability, each party's fault ratio should be lower than that of another defendant.

However, the scope of liability for damages caused by a joint tort shall be determined by comprehensively assessing all the acts of the tortfeasor in relation to the victim, and each tortfeasor shall be liable for the full amount of the compensation for damages. Even if the degree of liability of the tortfeasor is minor compared to other tortfeasors, the scope of liability of the tortfeasor cannot be limited to part of the amount of compensation determined as above in relation to the victim. In addition, in the case of a joint tort, even if the rate of negligence against each tortfeasor of the victim differs with each other in relation to comparative negligence of the victim, the court shall not individually assess the negligence of the victim, but shall evaluate all the negligence of all the joint tortfeasors (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da32999, Jun. 14, 2007). Accordingly, the aforementioned assertion by the Defendants is not acceptable.

4) Sub-committee

Therefore, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the plaintiff 3,950,969,154 won (=5,644,241,649 won x 70% x less than won) and damages for delay calculated at each rate of 15% per annum under the Civil Act from September 12, 2014 to January 19, 2018, where it is deemed reasonable to dispute about the existence and scope of the defendants' obligations to perform, as the plaintiff seeks, from September 12, 2014.

[Plaintiff’s claim of this case from September 12, 2014, or from the date of delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case, until the date of delivery of a copy of the application for change of claim and cause of claim as of July 13, 2017, the Plaintiff claimed for the payment of damages for delay calculated at the rate of 6% per annum as stipulated in the Commercial Act. On the other hand, the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act’s liability for damages is deemed as separate from the tort liability under the Civil Act, but its substance does not differ from the tort liability under the Civil Act, and thus, the rate of damages for delay or the time of occurrence thereof does not change from the tort liability under the Civil Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Da221517, Sept. 28, 2016). Accordingly, the Plaintiff’

6. Conclusion

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder of the claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, the judgment of the court of first instance shall be accepted in part, and it shall be modified as the judgment of the court of first instance including the Plaintiff’s claim expanded in the trial

(attached Form omitted)

Judges Yoon Sung-sung (Presiding Judge)