Samsungbow Scholarship Foundation and one other (Law Firm Sejong, Attorneys O Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

KTB Asset Management Co., Ltd. and one other (Law Firm Kim & Kim, Attorneys Kim Man-man et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

September 4, 2014

1. The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiffs each of KRW 20,000,000,000 as well as 5% per annum from June 29, 2010 to October 30, 2014, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The plaintiffs' remaining claims are dismissed.

3. One-half of the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiffs, and the remainder is assessed against the Defendants.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The Defendants jointly and severally pay to each of the Plaintiffs 50 million won with 5% interest per annum from June 29, 2010 to the delivery date of a copy of the instant complaint, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the full payment date.

1. Basic facts

A. Organization and employees, etc. of the Plaintiff Incorporated Foundation, Samsungblus Scholarship Foundation (hereinafter “Plaintiff Foundation”) and the Korea Aviation University of the Plaintiff Incorporated Foundation (hereinafter “Plaintiff School”).

1) Plaintiff Foundation

A) The Plaintiff Foundation established a fund management committee consisting of three directors of Samsung Scholarship Scholarship Foundation and five external experts under its jurisdiction, setting the overall fund management direction, policy, etc. of the Foundation, and the fund management team executed matters resolved by the fund management committee. Meanwhile, there was also a fund management subcommittee consisting of three members of the fund management committee.

B) At the time of the instant case, the chairman of the Fund Management Committee was Nonparty 10, who was the president of the Plaintiff Foundation, and the members were Nonparty 11, Nonparty 12, Nonparty 13, Nonparty 14, Nonparty 15, Nonparty 16, and Defendant 2. Of these, Nonparty 10, Nonparty 12, and Defendant 2 were members of the Fund Management Subcommittee. Meanwhile, the head of the Fund Management Team’s team, who executed the matters resolved by the Fund Management Committee, was Nonparty 17, but Nonparty 17 was qualified as working-level and was present at the Fund Management Committee and subcommittees.

2) Plaintiff School

A) Around April 2010, the Plaintiff’s school established the Fund Operation Advisory Committee to seek advice on how to operate the Fund for Profit-making business of the Plaintiff’s school. At the time, the Plaintiff’s total four members were Nonparty 12, Nonparty 18, Nonparty 15, and Defendant 2.

B) The Plaintiff’s school board de facto delegated the right to decide on the operation of the Fund to the chief executive officer and the chief executive officer, who is a full-time executive officer. The internal discretionary decision rules on the Fund became the chief of the headquarters with the final approval, and most of the actual decision-making on the operation of the Fund were the chief of the headquarters. However, in the event of an important

C) At the time of the instant case, the president of the Plaintiff’s school was Nonparty 19, and the head of the headquarters was Nonparty 9. On the other hand, Nonparty 20 and Nonparty 21 were the chief of the department in charge of operating the Fund.

B. Organization and employees of Defendant KTB Asset Management Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant KTB Asset Management”).

1) Defendant KTB asset management is a corporation established for the purpose of operating assets, etc., and Defendant 2 is the representative director of Defendant KTB asset management.

2) Defendant KTB’s strategic investment headquarters was composed of a strategic investment team and a PE team as a department in charge of investment in M&A-related investment and investment in special assets other than stocks and bonds.

3) At the time, the strategic investment team was under the control of Nonparty 22, Nonparty 1, Nonparty 23, etc. in the director, Nonparty 5, the vice-director, etc. in the PE team, and Nonparty 22 in charge of the overall duties of the strategic investment headquarters. In addition, Nonparty 25 in charge of the duties of the marketing center was under the control of the vice-president, and Nonparty 26 in the marketing team against institutional investors, etc.

4) In relation to the instant case, Nonparty 22 performed the duties as a general manager of investment, Nonparty 5 took charge of the practice of investment, and Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 24 were mainly in charge of Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 24. In addition, Nonparty 26 of the marketing team contacted with various institutional investors in relation to the instant issue of capital increase with consideration.

C. The current status of Busan Savings Bank (hereinafter “ Busan Savings Bank”) and its affiliated Savings Bank

1) In around 199, Busan Savings Bank Co., Ltd., Busan Savings Bank (hereinafter “BO2 Savings Bank”), Central Busan Savings Bank (hereinafter “Central Savings Bank”), around 2006, Daejeon Savings Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “SO2 Savings Bank”), around 2008, and Jeon Savings Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “SO2 Savings Bank”), respectively. At the time of the instant case, the Busan Savings Bank constituted five Savings Bank Group at the time of the instant case.

2) Meanwhile, in calculating the connection BS ratio of the Busan Savings Bank at the time of capital increase, only the Busan Savings Bank was subject to the connection. In the case of the Central Savings Bank, the KTB-SB private equity fund investment companies operated by the defendant KTB asset management were excluded from the scope of connection by the largest shareholder, and in the case of the Daejeon Savings Bank and the Jeon Savings Bank, the target of connection was deferred from November 2008 to November 2008, when the Busan Savings Bank acquired it by the supervisory authority.

D. The funds related to the Busan Savings Bank’s assets management of Defendant KTB before the Fund in this case

1) KTB-SB Investment Company: Related to the acquisition of shares in the Central Busan Savings Bank;

A) Defendant KTB Asset Management constituted a consortium with the Busan Savings Bank on February 2, 2006 and became an executive partner by establishing the KTB-SB Private Equity Investment Company for the purpose of acquiring the shares of the Central Busan Savings Bank (hereinafter “KTB Central Subsidiary Fund”).

B) The Seoul National University Development Fund (Seoul National University Development Fund) was invested in KRW 5 billion, KRW 5 billion from KRW 5 billion from KRW 5 billion from KRW 12.5 billion, KRW 2 billion from Nonparty 27, and KRW 500 million from Defendant KTB from KRW 500 million, and KRW 12.5 billion in total from KRW 12.5 billion from April 2006, the KTB Central Subsidiary Fund acquired KRW 12.5 billion from KRW 12.5 billion.

C) The Busan Savings Bank acquired 30% of the shares of the Central Subsidiary Savings Bank, and decided to exercise management rights of the Central Subsidiary Savings Bank in accordance with the agreement with the Korea TB Central Subsidiary Savings Fund. However, Defendant KTB’s management designated Nonparty 22 as outside directors of the Central Subsidiary Savings Bank, and accordingly, Nonparty 22 was listed as outside directors of the Central Subsidiary Savings Bank.

2) Subparagraph 1 and 2 of the investment trust of special assets of the KTB Cambodia: Related to the project for the development of the Cambodian gue City in which the Busan Savings Bank participated;

A) The Busan Savings Bank held 60% of the share of the local corporation that carries out the Cambodia project (hereinafter referred to as “ Cambodia project”) in the name of Cambodia, a limited liability company and Nonparty 28, and a local government-invested company (hereinafter referred to as “the local bank”) established a local bank (hereinafter referred to as “the local bank”) on June 2007, to lend part payments to the buyers of the flac apartment, etc.

B) Around June 2007, Nonparty 6, a representative director of the Busan Savings Bank and a vice-chairperson of the Group, requested Defendant 2 to examine and request the creation of a fund related to Cambodia’s business, and Defendant KTB asset management began to attract investors from July 2007 through on-site inspections.

C) Around May 2008, Defendant KTB asset management created subparagraphs 1 and 2 of the KTB Cambodia Special Asset Investment Trust (hereinafter referred to as “KTB Cambodia 1 fund” and “KTB Cambodia 2 fund” for convenience). The first priority of KTB Cambodia 1 fund invested KRW 16 billion in the KTB Cambodia fund and KRW 10 billion in the KDB life insurance company (hereinafter referred to as “KDB life”) and the Busan Savings Bank invested KRW 53.9 billion in the subordinate KTB Cambodia 2 fund.

D) The structure referred to in subparagraphs 1 and 2 of the KTB Cambodia fund is first established as a local subsidiary of Cambodia (hereinafter “WCAM”) and <2, KTB Cambodia fund No. 1 and 2 loans to WCAM for KRW 80 billion for purchase price of apartment housing 386 households constructed in Franch, and ③ WCAM purchases apartment housing 386 households from Franch with its loans and collects funds upon completion, and ④ collects the principal and interest of loans from WCAA, and ultimately, collects from GCAA. 1 and 2, the structure of Cambodia fund No. 1, 1, 2, and 386 households with money invested from GCAM as security.

E) Meanwhile, in addition to being provided with an apartment complex 386 households under construction, KTB Cambodia’s fund secured mortgage on part of the land for Cambodia’s project, the executor’s joint and several sureties’s joint and several liability, and the guarantee of payment for Hanil Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Korea-Japan Construction”), as security, and in addition, in case where WCAM fails to pay the principal and interest of investment to the KTB Cambodia’s fund No. 1 when the maturity date, the Busan Savings Bank extended an amount equivalent to the principal and interest of investment to the FT, which is a joint and several sureties’s joint and several liability.

F) Since the construction of residential facilities in the first stage of Cambodia City development project has not been completed so far, the funds of the KTB Cambodia No. 1 did not recover the investment amount due to apartment lease and sale, and the Busan Savings Bank and the Korea-Japan Construction are in the situation where the Busan Savings Bank and the Korea-Japan Construction did not receive the principal and interest of the investment from the Busan Savings Bank and the Korea-Japan Construction.

3) KTB-SB private equity investment trust: Related to the acquisition of shares in the Daejeon Savings Bank;

A) On November 2008, KTB investment companies, the managing partner of which participated in the Daejeon Savings Bank of the Busan Savings Bank, and acquired approximately KRW 7 million shares of the Daejeon Savings Bank in the amount of KRW 30 billion on the condition that they exercise put options after one year in the Busan Savings Bank.

B) On September 2009, the company specializing in the private equity investment of KRB, 200, demanded the Busan Savings Bank to acquire the shares of the Daejeon Savings Bank in accordance with the terms of put-in options. Moreover, the Busan Savings Bank requested Defendant KTB asset management to establish a structure fund that can postpone the acquisition of the shares of the Busan Savings Bank for a period of one year while receiving the exercise of put-in options by the company specializing in the private equity investment of TPPB,000.

C) Accordingly, around October 2009, Defendant KTB asset management received the exercise of put-in options of Daejeon Savings Bank’s share in the Daejeon Savings Bank’s Daejeon Asset Management Company (hereinafter “KB”) along with the MTB Asset Management Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “BS”) and the Bads Asset Management Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Eds Asset Management”).

① Defendant KTB asset management, advanced asset management, and undisclosed asset management were each set up each special asset investment trust (the name of the fund established by KTB asset management is KTB-SB special asset investment trust, and the name of the fund is KTB-S special asset investment trust; hereinafter “KTB Daejeon Special Fund”). Each special asset investment trust, which was established by the due asset management and the undisclosed asset management, established each of the following: (a) the relevant special asset investment trust was set up: (b) the relevant special fund; and (c) the undisclosed fund.

② The KTB Special Fund, the Ulmon Savings Bank, the Eddives Special Fund, the Edives Special Fund, the Solomon Savings Bank (hereinafter “ Solomon Savings Bank”), the Korea Capital Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Korea”) and the Foreign Capital Capital Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Foreign Capital”) invested KRW 13 billion, 11 billion, and 11 billion, respectively, and became the beneficiary of each fund.

③ Meanwhile, Defendant KTB Asset Management Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “the Han field”), Han field limited company (hereinafter “ Han field”), Han field limited company established by Hanjin Asset Management (hereinafter “ Han field”), SPC limited company established by Hanjin Asset Management (hereinafter “Bail”), and SPC limited company established by the clinic Asset Management (hereinafter “Bail”) acquired loans from each gold comprehensive financial company (hereinafter “gold comprehensive financial company”), Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Seoul Capital”), and KTB Capital Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “KTB Capital”), and acquired 25.7% of the shares of the Daejeon Savings Bank at the ratio of 9.5%, 8.1%, and 8.1%.1%.

④ In addition, KTB Daejeon Special Fund, Jins special fund, dives special fund, and dives special fund received the transfer of loans from Solomon Savings Bank, Korea Capital Capital and Foreign Exchange Capital, each of the fields of gold comprehensive finance, Gag Capital, and Kitlish, Hanter, and Litlish.

⑤ Ultimately, Defendant KTB asset management, advanced asset management, and lives asset management are to create funds to acquire shares in the Daejeon Savings Bank, thereby having received investments from Solomon Savings Bank, Korea Capital Capital, and foreign exchange capital, and to acquire shares in the Daejeon Savings Bank in the Han field, Han Han-gu, and Nuri-do name.

D) Meanwhile, during the period from October 4, 201 to October 15, 201, approximately one year after the acquisition of shares in the Han field, Hanter, and Nuridong, the Daejeon Savings Bank acquired put option to sell its shares in KRW 40.4 billion to the Busan Savings Bank.

E) Accordingly, around October 2010, Kedy field, Kedyter, and Ledyle option with the Busan Savings Bank. The Busan Savings Bank acquired the shares of the Daejeon Savings Bank in total amounting to approximately KRW 40.4 billion from the dry field, Kedyter, and Ledyle on October 28, 2010.

(e) Joint inspection of Busan Savings Bank and affiliated savings bank by the Financial Supervisory Service and the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation;

1) The background of the joint inspection

From March 2, 2010 to June 29, 2010, the Financial Supervisory Service and the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation conducted a joint inspection on the Busan Savings Bank and affiliated savings bank (hereinafter “instant joint inspection”). The main reason why the joint inspection was conducted was likely to be defective according to the excessive ratio of the PF loans of the Busan Savings Bank and its affiliated savings bank. Accordingly, the focus of the joint inspection was based on the evaluation of the asset soundness of the Busan Savings Bank and affiliated savings bank loans claims and the BS ratio.

In other words, the claims of savings banks are classified into five stages of normal credit, required credit, fixed credit, collected credit, and estimated loss credit, according to the degree of soundness of credit. As the level of soundness is lower, the amount of the bad debt reserve to be accumulated by savings banks has increased, and as the bad debt reserve has increased, it is required to handle expenses in account as much as the bad debt reserve has increased, which has a negative impact on net income of savings banks, and thus, the BISD ratio of savings banks is lower. Therefore, the Financial Supervisory Service and the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation will examine whether the Busan Savings Bank classify the assets soundness of the claims of the Busan Savings Bank and whether the BISD ratio is correct.

2) Financial Supervisory Service’s asset soundness assessment

At the time of the joint inspection of this case, the Financial Supervisory Service, by receiving related data, such as the progress of the project, payment status of interest, etc. from the practitioners of the Busan Savings Bank, entered the land purchase rate, the progress rate of the project, and the approval and permission status of the project in the measurement and evaluation program, calculated the scores, and then classified the asset soundness according to the evaluation of the feasibility of the project in a manner of making the first step increase or decrease for the non-measurable non-measurable items, and then finally determined the asset soundness classification by selecting the significant repair result.In addition, the Financial Supervisory Service, as well as the asset soundness classification of the general loan claims, was re-determined.

3) The result of the instant joint inspection

A) At the time of the instant joint inspection, Nonparty 29, who was the head of the inspection team for the Busan Savings Bank at the time of the instant joint inspection, prepared an interim report on the inspection process with the Busan Savings Bank (hereinafter “Interim report”) around March 26, 2010. The interim report stated in the interim report as follows: “The connection BISD ratio (provisional) ratio between the Busan Savings Bank is presumed to be 1.03%, which falls short of the ratio of self-determination of the Busan Savings Bank as a result of the inspection, and subject to timely corrective measures,” “the link ratio was considerably low as a result of the inspection,” and “the amount of increase in the amount necessary to achieve the BISD ratio 5%: 102 billion won.”

B) On the other hand, on June 2010, the Financial Supervisory Service issued a summary of the inspection results to the Busan Savings Bank after calculating the provisional inspection value on the Busan Savings Bank and the Busan Second Savings Bank (hereinafter “provisional inspection confirmation result”). The provisional inspection result stated as follows: “The provisional inspection result, on March 2010, by unfairly classifying the asset soundness at the end of the quarter of the year, and reserving the amount of KRW 234.16 billion for bad debts in excess of the amount of KRW 20.84% for bad debts, thereby making up for the amount of KRW 7.84% for connection BS ratio to KRW 7.84% for bad debts (No. 3) and 1.02% for bad debts (no. 4.86% for bad debts).”

(2) In addition, around July 2010, the Financial Supervisory Service prepared a report on the completion of the inspection of the instant joint inspection (hereinafter “the report on the completion of the inspection”) of the five savings banks in Busan, which contained the result of the final inspection of the instant joint inspection, and the main contents of the report on the completion of the inspection are as follows.

II. Results of inspection, such as BISD

As a result of this inspection on March 31, 2010, the connecting BISD ratio as of March 31, 2010 falls under the timely corrective measures by a savings bank, excluding the Busan Savings Bank (150 billion won, 6.15%), the Busan Savings Bank (50 billion won, 50 billion won, 7.21%) and the Busan Second Savings Bank (50 billion won, 7.21%), which was subject to timely corrective measures.

1.02% (A) of 1.02% of 3.86% of 3.46% of 5.42% of 3.51% of 8.86% of 8.86% of 7.84% of 2.26% (A-B) - 7.84% - 4.98% - 4.98% - 3.54% - 3.54% - 7.68% of 7.54% of - 7.54% of 7.58% of 2.51% of 2.51% of 2.51% of 150 billion won of capital increase with capital increase: 6.15% of connecting BIS in consideration of the amount paid for capital increase with capital increase.

○ The amount of need for the management normalization (consolidated) 5 to 8% per savings bank shall be named from 6.2 billion to 146.1 billion won by savings bank.

Table BS ratio in the main sentence - 5% of the Daejeon District of Busan District of Busan District (Consolidated Standards) - 66 1,085 62 1,213 8% 1,005 165 189 1,461 186 3,006 unit * KRW 186,006 unit * KRW 1,50 billion in consideration of the amount of paid-in capital * KRW 150 billion in Busan District of District of Busan District of District of District of District of District of District of District of District of Busan District of District of District of District of District of District of District of District of District

○ The reason why the BIS ratio has significantly decreased is the result of unfairly classifying the asset soundness of the loans, and the amount of the additional appropriation for bad debts is 4,31.2 billion won in all departments.

PF loans (A) 1,548 671 725 722,045 general loans (B) 1,183 434 40 96 87,840 87 87,840 1,731,105 8219 8219 4,889 - 189 - 189 - 184 - 573 2,3429 109 - 573 - 2,3429 109 109 -312 -

Table ‘BS ratio (e.g., the effect of BS ratio) in accordance with the sale of PF loan cccam in the main text. Busan 2010, the effect of BS ratio 1.02% 3.86% loss and loss 1,14.9 billion won as of March 2010, 190, KRW 8.69% of anticipated BS ratio 8.91% on June 2010 * June 6, 2010 * expected BS ratio: The ratio of BS ratio in consideration of capital increase with capital increase by Busan 2 Bank and Busan 2 Bank.

F. The plaintiffs' investment in this case

1) The request to Nonparty 6 of Busan Savings Bank to participate in capital increase with consideration and the revision of the articles of incorporation of Busan Savings Bank

A) On March 2010, Nonparty 6 of the Busan Savings Bank stated to Defendant 2 as follows: “At present, the Financial Supervisory Service, etc. inspect the Busan Savings Bank, and the demand for the establishment of allowances would have been made to increase its capital.” Defendant 2 issued to the Busan Savings Bank a letter of intent to make an investment (hereinafter “instant letter of intent to make an investment”) around March 30, 2010; Defendant 2 issued the letter of intent to make an investment to the Busan Savings Bank (hereinafter “instant letter of intent to make an investment”). The contents are as follows.

The Schedule KTB Asset Management contained in the main text has the intent to make an investment within the scope of maximum of KRW 100 billion with respect to the converted preferential share that is to be issued by the Busan Savings Bank, provided that this letter of intent is not an investment undertaking and its final decision-making is confirmed in accordance with the internal decision-making process of us. - - next - The converted preferential share investment amount to be issued by the Busan Savings Bank: the effective period of ○○ investment amount to be issued by the Busan Savings Bank: June 30, 2010.

B) On March 2010, Busan Savings Bank visited the Financial Supervisory Service around the end of March, 2010, and submitted a letter of intent to make the instant investment to Nonparty 3 at that time.

C) On the other hand, on March 29, 2010, Defendant KTB asset management Nonparty 22 requested the review of the articles of incorporation of the Busan Savings Bank to Nonparty 30, who was affiliated with the law firm, as to whether the Busan Savings Bank may issue priority shares. On the same day, Nonparty 30 sent an opinion to the effect that, although it is impossible to issue priority shares in the present situation to Defendant KTB asset management Nonparty 24, it is possible to issue them if the procedures for amending the articles of incorporation are followed. Moreover, on May 3, 2010, the Busan Savings Bank partly amended the articles of incorporation so that it can issue priority shares by opening a temporary general meeting of shareholders.

2) Progress of investment in the Plaintiff Foundation

A) On April 6, 2010, Defendant 2 discussed the new investment sources among the meetings of the Second Fund Management Committee of the Plaintiff Foundation, which was opened around April 6, 2010, Defendant 2 stated that “I would like to make a proposal only once the Savings Bank will make a proposal,” and that “I would like to make a proposal by the Savings Bank at the end of the meeting at the time when the meeting is closed.”

B) On May 10, 2010, at the meeting of the Plaintiff Foundation Management Sub-Committee, Defendant 2 presented an investment premium at the meeting of the Plaintiff Foundation Management Sub-Committee, which was held on May 10, 2010, and specifically indicated that the Plaintiff Company was the Busan Savings Bank. At the time, the Fund Management Sub-Committee decided to deliberate on the investment premium of the Busan Savings Bank at the total Fund Management Committee, and at the same time, the size of the Plaintiff Foundation’s rap Ac account, which can be freely invested, was extended to KRW 90 billion.

C) On June 17, 2010, Defendant 2, Nonparty 5, and Nonparty 1 attended the third fund management committee meeting of the Plaintiff Foundation, which was held on June 17, 2010, and recommended the Plaintiff to invest KRW 50 billion in the capital increase to the Busan Savings Bank. On the same day, the Plaintiff’s fund management committee issued to Defendant KTB asset management an investment letter stating that “if the Plaintiff Foundation increases the amount of KRW 50 billion first to the major shareholder, etc. of the Busan Savings Bank, etc., the Plaintiff Foundation has an intention to participate in the investment of KRW 50 billion.”

D) On June 29, 2010, the Plaintiff Foundation paid KRW 50 billion to the instant fund, which was necessary for the instant fund to pay subscription price for new shares issued by Busan Savings Bank. On June 29, 2010, the Plaintiff Foundation purchased 50 billion shares of the instant fund’s beneficiary certificates.

3) Progress of investment in Plaintiff’s school

A) In the course of discussions on the overall method of fund management of the Mana Fund held on April 18, 2010 at the meetings of the Plaintiff’s Fund Operation Advisory Committee for the Plaintiff’s School, Defendant 2 stated to the effect that “it is possible to connect the products that offer 12% profits without risk. It is also possible to stably pay profits if the funds are provided to an enterprise requiring the funds, but structuralizing them.”

B) On May 7, 2010, Defendant KTB Asset Management recommended Nonparty 20 in charge of the Plaintiff’s school affairs to make investment in the instant fund, and around May 10, 2010, Defendant 2 sent the Plaintiff’s investment soft at the Plaintiff’s school. around May 19, 2010, Defendant 2 solicited Nonparty 19 to visit Nonparty 19 to make an investment in the instant fund by visiting Nonparty 19’s Samsung Dong-dong office, the president of the Plaintiff’s school.

C) On May 27, 2010, Nonparty 9 visited Defendant KTB Asset Management Office to hear the explanation on the instant capital increase with consideration from Defendant 2, and around that time, expressed that Nonparty 19 would report Defendant 2’s explanation to Nonparty 19 and make an investment. Nonparty 19 said that Nonparty 9 would be able to determine whether to make an investment in line with the subsidization with the decision of the Plaintiff Foundation because she is well aware of the fact.

D) On June 17, 2010, Nonparty 9 of the Plaintiff’s school heard from Nonparty 12 that the Plaintiff Foundation invested KRW 50 billion in the instant capital increase with the condition that the major shareholder, etc. increase the amount of KRW 50 billion. On the same day, Nonparty 9 issued the Plaintiff’s investment intent to “I would have the intention to participate in the investment of KRW 50 billion if the major shareholder, etc. of the Busan Savings Bank increases the amount of KRW 50 billion first.”

E) In addition, around June 29, 2010, the Plaintiff’s school deposited KRW 50 billion with the major shareholders of the Busan Savings Bank, etc., and paid KRW 50 billion to the Fund necessary for the Fund to pay subscription price for new shares issued with Busan Savings Bank. The Fund purchased KRW 50 billion with the beneficiary certificates of the Fund.

G. Specific contents of capital increase with respect to the instant case

1) Preferred Share Subscription Agreement

A) On June 29, 2010, the Plaintiffs deposited KRW 10 billion each of the KRW 50 billion in Korea Securities Finance Co., Ltd. (a person who keeps and manages the investment trust property, and performs the business of acquisition and disposal of assets, termination price, and profit payment in accordance with Defendant KTB’s instructions on the management of the investment trust property; hereinafter “Korea Securities Finance”).

B) On June 29, 2010, Busan Savings Bank, Korea Securities Finance, and Defendant KTB Asset Management entered into an underwriting contract with the effect that the Korea Securities Finance Co., Ltd. will acquire 9,99,350,000 won of the nonvoting shares of the Busan Savings Bank, and 406,90 won of the convertible shares of the voting shares of the Busan Savings Bank (hereinafter “instant preferential subscription contract”). Article 4 of the instant preferential subscription contract provides that “this case Co., Ltd. is a non-participating and non-integrated preferential subscription shares, and the acquirer will receive at least an amount equivalent to 12.1% per annum as at the base price of 56,500 won per stock during the possession of this case.”

2) Agreement between the shareholders of the Busan Savings Bank and the shareholders of the non-party 8

On the other hand, Korea Securities Finance and Defendant KTB Asset Management entered into an agreement with shareholders separately from Nonparty 8, who was the major shareholder of the Busan Savings Bank as of June 29, 2010, and the major contents of the agreement are as follows: (i) in the event that the Korea Securities Finance does not pay profits, the connection BS ratio of the Busan Savings Bank as of the end of each business year falls below 7%; (ii) in the event that the Busan Savings Bank’s connection BS ratio as of the end of each business year is reduced to less than 7%, etc., Nonparty 8 or Nonparty 8 may exercise the right to claim purchase of shares (Articles 6, 7, 12) (Article 6, 7, and 12), and (ii) in the event that the purchaser fails to pay put options, Korean Securities Finance can sell the stocks of Korea Securities Finance to a third party. In this case, the right to sell stocks of the major shareholder of the Busan Savings Bank together with the third party (Article 1,866,693 shares).

3) Trust fees for Defendant KTB asset management

On the other hand, Defendant KTB asset management, as an operator of the instant fund, was paid 0.50/100 of the annual average value of the investment trust property every year.

(h) Suspension of business and criminal punishment against Busan Savings Bank and affiliated savings bank;

1) On February 17, 201, around eight months after the date of the instant capital increase with consideration, the Financial Services Commission issued an order to suspend business operations for the Busan Savings Bank, the Central District Savings Bank, and the Jeonju Savings Bank on February 19, 201, and the Financial Supervisory Service thereafter conducted an asset and debt inspection on the Busan Savings Bank and the affiliated savings bank.

2) As of the end of April 201 and the end of the Financial Services Commission’s inspection of the assets and liabilities of the Financial Supervisory Service, as of December 2010, the Financial Services Commission imposed on Busan Savings Bank, Busan Savings Bank, Busan District Savings Bank, Daejeon Savings Bank, Daejeon Savings Bank, and Jeonju Savings Bank, both of which are in capital erosion, and the BISD ratio was -50.29%, --43.35%, -28.48%, -25.29%, -1.56%, -1.56%, the Financial Services Commission imposed on Busan Savings Bank and Savings Bank on the Busan Savings Bank and Savings Bank as of the end of December 2010.

3) On March 201, the prosecutor started an investigation into the Busan Savings Bank and the affiliated savings bank. On May 201, the prosecutor established a large number of SPC and directly directly operated various implementation projects by establishing various SPCs at the group level. Nonparty 8, etc. was prosecuted on charges of violation of the Mutual Savings Banks Act, violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation), violation of the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies, and violation of the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies. At the time of the prosecution, the amount of the window dressing accounting of the Busan Savings Bank and affiliated savings bank was equivalent to KRW 1,32 billion for the accounting period from July 1, 2008 to June 30, 2009, ② the amount equivalent to KRW 1,32 billion for the accounting period from July 1, 2009 to KRW 310 million for the accounting period from October 1, 201 to June 30, 2009.

4) On May 18, 2011, the Plaintiff Foundation submitted to the prosecution a written request to investigate the fact that “Defendant 2, the representative director of the Defendant KTB asset management and the Defendant 2, who recommended the Plaintiffs to make the instant investment, had a close relationship with the major shareholders and management officers of the Busan Savings Bank. However, the Busan Savings Bank, in collusion with the major shareholders and management officers of the Busan Savings Bank, who need to increase the capital due to the decline in the financial situation of the Busan Savings Bank, caused the Plaintiffs to make the instant investment through false information provision, false explanation, and unfair solicitation, thereby committing a crime of breach of trust, fraud, and violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (hereinafter “Fraud”).”

5) On October 31, 201, the Defendants were indicted for violation of the Capital Markets Act due to fraudulent illegal transactions and solicitation, and violation of the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Price (Fraud).

6) On December 13, 2013, the court of Seoul Central District Court (Seoul Central District Court 201Gohap1372) found the Defendant guilty of the violation of the Capital Markets Act due to an unfair solicitation on the grounds that “the Defendant provided a conclusive judgment on uncertain matters in making an investment recommendation or provided information that could mislead the Defendant to believe that the investment would be certain in making an investment recommendation,” but found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged that “the Defendant provided the Plaintiffs with fraudulent illegal transactions and deceptions to attract the instant investment,” and sentenced the Defendants to a fine of KRW 100 million.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's entries and the whole purport of pleadings

2. Liability for damages caused by unfair trading or deception;

A. Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

No one shall intend to gain money or any interest in property by using a document containing a false description or representation of a material fact or an omission of a description or representation of a material fact necessary for preventing others from being misled, in connection with the trading, etc. of financial investment instruments (Article 178(1)2 of the Capital Markets Act).

However, although the defendants knew of the financial situation of the Busan Savings Bank at the time of the investment recommendation of this case, they were responsible for compensating the plaintiffs for damages caused by the following series of unfair trading or deception.

① The Defendants prepared an investment intent on March 30, 2010 for the purpose of preventing the financial soundness of the Busan Savings Bank rather than the interests of the Plaintiffs, which are investors. On April 7, 2010, the Second Fund Management Committee of the Plaintiff Foundation and the First Fund Management Advisory Committee of the Plaintiff on April 28, 2010, induced investment in the Busan Savings Bank with the aim of preventing the financial soundness of the Busan Savings Bank and any disadvantage therefrom.

② The Defendants explained the instant investment to the Plaintiffs, not because the reason why the Busan Savings Bank requires capital increase is not because the internal insolvency was revealed as a result of the inspection by the Financial Supervisory Service, but because the Financial Supervisory Service demands the establishment of excessive allowances. The Defendants explained that, as they offered scholarships to students, they are very stable investment and that they secured 12% high-income per annum by acquiring the major shareholders of the Busan Savings Bank, which are the major shareholders of the Busan Savings Bank, with a large amount of dividends, and thus, they are very stable investment and that there is no moral defect.

③ On June 16, 2010, the Defendants entered false information on the inspection results of the Financial Supervisory Service, which is an important matter necessary to prevent the Plaintiffs from being misled, and omitted information on financial advisory fees, allowances for bad debts and conflicts of interest in Busan 2 Savings Bank, and distributed it by the Plaintiff Foundation Management Committee on June 17, 2010, which is determined as to whether the instant investment was made.

④ On June 17, 2010, the Defendants provided a false explanation on the connection BISD ratio, the sales process of Brazil State bonds, the ratio of principal PPF loans, the relationship with Busan Savings Bank, and the circumstances leading up to the investment of this case using the fund. On June 17, 2010, the Defendants provided a false explanation on the position of the Financial Supervisory Service, the results of the joint inspection by the Financial Supervisory Service, the soundness of major shareholders of Busan Savings Bank, the financial status of Busan Savings Bank, the possibility of allocating dividends by 12% per annum, and the possibility of recovering investment funds.

⑤ The Defendants, through a management normalization implementation plan received from the Busan Savings Bank on June 23, 2010, had a significant difference between the data publicly announced by the Busan Savings Bank at the end of June 2009 and the data publicly announced by the Busan Savings Bank at the end of December 2009, and the financial statements prepared by the Busan Savings Bank at the end of Busan Savings Bank are very poor, and the financial statements prepared by the Busan Savings Bank at the end of December 1, 2009 were divided. Despite the capital increase with 150 billion won, the BS ratio was below 8%, and there was a high possibility that the Plaintiffs may incur losses in the total amount of the investment funds at the 8.8 club, and even though they knew of the fact that the bank fell at the 8.8 club, there was a financial crisis that the Plaintiffs could have suffered losses in the total amount of the investment funds at the end of June 25, 2010 and the 3.209.209.

B. Determination

1) Preparation of a letter of intent to make an investment on March 30, 2010, and inducement of investment by April 2010

The plaintiffs asserted that the intent of investment made on March 30, 2010 by the Financial Supervisory Service and the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation to assess the assets of the Busan Savings Bank, which was revealed as a result of a joint inspection by the Financial Supervisory Service, and that the risk of decline in the BISD and the 8.8 club decline is established in order to prevent such a situation. However, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively considering the overall purport of the pleadings as follows: ① the inspection by the Financial Supervisory Service around March 2010, it is difficult to assess the assets of the Busan Savings Bank in accordance with the Financial Supervisory Service’s asset evaluation standards, and it is difficult to accumulate an increased allowance of 20 million won or more, and ② the Busan Savings Bank’s 200 billion won or more, which caused the decline in the BISD ratio, as a result of its operation by the Busan Savings Bank, constituted the Defendants’ fraudulent act or the Plaintiff’s 200 funds management committee’s fraudulent act, such as the degree of loss caused to the withdrawal of the funds.

2) Investment interest rates created at the beginning of May 2010 and investment recommendations made before June 16, 2010

(5) In light of the following circumstances, the head of the division in charge of defendant KTB strategic investment fund requested 2 to provide materials necessary for preparing investment premium rates on April 8, 2010 to the non-party 2 of the Busan District Financial Supervisory Service on the following grounds: (i) the non-party 1 did not know that the non-party 2 provided the financial statements of the Busan District Financial Supervisory Service from around April 13, 2010 to the non-party 2, the non-party 1 stated that the non-party 1 provided the non-party 2 with the non-party 7 financial statements of the Busan District Financial Supervisory Service to the non-party 1's financial position or the non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party investment savings.

3) Additional materials related to the increase of capital prepared on June 16, 2010

In light of the following circumstances: (i) the Busan High Bank’s 27, 29, 41, 42, and 16, 36, and 85 shares increase in the Busan High Bank’s 200 million Won for the reason that it was difficult for the Defendants to receive additional 00 million Won for the KRW 100,000,000 from the Busan High Bank’s 200,000 Busan High Bank’s KRW 20,000,000,000,000 KRW 1,000,000,000,000 KRW 4,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 KRW 2,000,00,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 won.

4) Explanations from the Third Fund Management Committee of the Plaintiff Foundation

The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments in Gap evidence 27, 29, Eul evidence 39, and Eul evidence 31, i.e., the BISD ratio as explained by defendant 2 at the meeting of the third fund management committee, are not different from the value on the final report of the Financial Supervisory Service. ② The contents and purport of the statement by defendant 2, at the meeting of the third fund management committee, explaining the results of joint inspection of the Financial Supervisory Service and the Busan Savings Bank and affiliated Savings Bank of the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the purport of the statement by defendant 2, when it comes to all savings banks, it is difficult for Korea savings banks to strictly demand allowances to close all doors when it is determined by the Financial Supervisory Service. Thus, it is difficult to conclude that the Financial Supervisory Service failed to issue the Financial Supervisory Service's request for allowances to the extent that it is difficult to ascertain the financial soundness of the financial institution's business before and after the Busan Fund's loan and the amount of funds deposited by the defendant 2, in light of the overall intent of the loan and the loan increase.

5) The product proposal of this case as of June 25, 2010 and the answer materials to questions at the early 28, 2010.

However, according to the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by the whole purport of the aforementioned evidence and pleading, i.e., the Financial Supervisory Service and the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation’s joint inspection results on the Busan Savings Bank and the Busan Savings Bank’s Busan Savings Bank’s financial statements on June 23, 2010, it is difficult to view that the Defendants could have known the fact that the financial statements of the Busan Savings Bank were divided through the management normalization performance plan on June 23, 2010. ② The data published after the Busan Savings Bank issued capital increaseing KRW 150 billion was indicated as 8.31% above the connection ratio. ③ Defendant 2, Nonparty 1, and Nonparty 5 were to prepare the documents such as the instant product proposal related to the sales of the Fund. In light of the foregoing, it is difficult to view that the Defendants prepared the financial statements of the Busan Savings Bank’s financial statements to be published in the electronic public disclosure system as the primary material, and there is no error in the number of 200 or 15% of the fraudulent Savings Bank’s financial statements in Busan Savings.

3. Liability for damages arising from breach of the obligation to protect investors at the fund management stage of this case

A. Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

1) Violation of the regulations on prevention of conflicts of interest

No financial investment business entity shall, without a justifiable reason, make profits of its investors or make a third party gain profits from its operations (Article 37(2) of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act). A financial investment business entity shall inform the investor concerned of the occurrence of conflicts of interest (Article 44(2) of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act). If it is deemed that it is difficult to lower the likelihood of conflicts of interest (Article 44(3) of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act), and shall not trade or make any other transaction (Article 44(3)

However, the fact that the Busan Savings Bank is expected to accept an amount equivalent to KRW 40.4 billion after the investment of this case is in conflict of interest between the plaintiffs and the defendants, but Defendant 2 was actively concealed without notifying the plaintiffs at all. Thus, the defendants are liable for damages due to the violation of the duty to prevent conflicts of interest under the Capital Markets Act.

2) Violation of the duty to protect investors in the course of managing collective investment property

A collective investment business entity owes the fiduciary duty of due care to investors in managing the collective investment property (Article 79(1) of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act). A collective investment business entity owes the fiduciary duty of due care to protect investors’ interests (Article 79(2) of the Financial Investment Services and

However, Defendant 2 neglected to exercise due care as a good manager in the course of managing collective investment property by failing to take any measures to secure bonds for the plaintiffs in the situation where Asian trust participating in capital increase with stocks issued by Busan Savings Bank was recovered, and thus, Defendant 2 is liable to compensate the plaintiffs for the damages caused thereby.

B. Determination

1) Violation of the regulations on prevention of conflicts of interest

As seen earlier, it cannot be concluded that the circumstances alleged by the Plaintiffs as conflicts of interest are conflicts of interest. It is difficult to view that the Defendants engaged in fraudulent unfair trading or deception against the Plaintiffs despite being aware of the financial status of the Busan Savings Bank at the time of the instant investment recommendation. Therefore, it is difficult to recognize the Defendants’ liability for damages due to breach of the duty to prevent conflicts of interest under the Capital Markets Act solely on the grounds that

2) Violation of the duty to protect investors in the course of managing collective investment property

The aforementioned evidence and the purport of oral argument are as follows: (i) the Plaintiffs asserted that the Defendants should take active measures, such as exercising put options in the situation where Asian trust collects investment funds; (ii) it cannot be readily concluded that the Defendants sold stocks by reason of the fact that the Asian trust sold the stocks; (iii) the Defendants did not have actively taken measures to recover investment funds by recognizing that the insolvency of the Busan Savings Bank was deepened; and (iv) it is in line with the fact that the investment of the Fund was basically an investment to accumulate allowances for bad debts, but the Busan Savings Bank does not have to keep the investment funds in a certain account for bad debts; (iii) it is basically difficult to see that the Plaintiff used the investment funds for any purpose of the Busan Savings Bank’s strategic determination; and (iii) the Defendants did not know the status of the operation of the Fund from time to time to time to time after the instant investment, and that there was no other evidence to recognize the Plaintiff’s right to request the sale of stocks by Nonparty 1, 2010, which was under the Busan Savings Bank’s management agreement and the Plaintiff’s joint Savings Agreement.

4. Liability for damages caused by an illegal solicitation or a violation of duty to explain;

A. Summary of the parties' arguments

1) The plaintiffs' assertion

Defendant 2, at the first meeting of the Fund Management Advisory Committee on April 28, 2010 (hereinafter “the first meeting of the Fund Management Advisory Committee”) held on April 28, 2010, did not sufficiently explain the risk of investment, etc., and did not provide a conclusive judgment on an uncertain matter or inform the contents that could mislead the Plaintiff to believe that it is certain. Thus, Defendant 2 is liable to compensate for the Plaintiffs’ damages.

2) The defendants' assertion

Defendant 2’s unfair solicitation by Defendant 2, as alleged by the Plaintiffs, is ① did not have made such remarks, or ② Defendant 2 made a follow-up speech or made a decision-making on investment prior to Defendant 2’s solicitation of investment in specific investment goods, and ③ The management members of the Plaintiffs’ Fund decided the investment of this case without any influence on Defendant 2’s remarks. Accordingly, Defendant 2’s remarks cannot be deemed to interfere with the formation of risk awareness in determining the investment of this case.

B. Relevant legal principles

Article 47(1) of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act provides that “a financial investment business entity shall, when recommending an ordinary investor to make an investment, explain to the ordinary investor the details of the financial investment instrument, the risks associated with the investment, and other matters prescribed by Presidential Decree so that the ordinary investor can understand them.” Article 47(3) of the said Act provides that “a financial investment business entity shall not explain, or omit, any material fact in making a false or distorted statement (referring to an act of providing or misleading a conclusive judgment as to any uncertain matter or making any misleading mistake as to any uncertain matter).” Article 49 Subparag. 2 of the said Act provides that “a financial investment business entity shall not provide a conclusive judgment on an uncertain matter or make any misleading statement that is likely to mislead any person to believe as certain” in making an investment recommendation.

Therefore, when a financial investment business entity makes an investment recommendation to a customer, it has a duty of care to protect the customer by clearly explaining the characteristics and major contents of the product, including the risks associated with the investment, so that the customer may make a reasonable investment decision based on the information. When the customer suffers loss as a result of the violation of such duty of care, tort liability is established. In this case, the degree of explanation to the customer should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the characteristics and risk level of the product concerned, the investor's investment experience and ability, etc. In order to establish tort, the solicitation is a case where the investor interferes with the investor's right formation of the risks inevitably accompanying the transaction or actively solicits the transaction involving excessive risks in light of the investor's investment situation, and ultimately, it can be evaluated as an act having illegality by neglecting the duty of protection to the customer. Moreover, the duty of protection such as such duty of explanation or prohibition of unjust solicitation is not excluded as an ordinary investor but merely alleviated the degree of the obligation.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) Soliciting the Plaintiff’s school

A) On April 28, 2010, Defendant 2 said that at the first meeting of the Fund Management Advisory Committee, Defendant 2 could connect “goods that offer 12% profits without any risk” at the meeting of the first Fund Management Advisory Committee, held at the meeting of the president of the Plaintiff School.

B) On May 27, 2010, Defendant 2 recommended the director of the Plaintiff’s headquarters to make an investment in the preferred share issued by the Busan Savings Bank at Defendant KTB Asset Management Office located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul, to Nonparty 45-2, and said, “If there is any risk of investment being made at a preemptive level, it would make such proposal to the Scholarship Foundation, and at all, safe investment.”

2) Recommendation for the Plaintiff Foundation

A) Meanwhile, around 07:30 on April 7, 2010, at the meeting of the Second Fund Management Committee (hereinafter “Meeting of the Second Fund Management Committee”) held on the Plaintiff’s 20th floor of the small and medium-gu Seoul Central District Joint 87-1 Sicot-type hotel in Jung-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “the meeting of the Second Fund Management Committee”) around April 7, 2010, Defendant 2 should be able to receive 12-13% of the total amount of put-off and put-in and put-in and put-in and put-out. On the other hand, it is unreasonable that Defendant 2 would be able to receive 12-13% of the total amount of put-in and put-in and put-in and put-in and put-out. This is because the other party is necessary, and even if .... is so doing, if 3 years have passed to make investments, it would be necessary, regardless of the fact that ... is necessary.”

B) At the third meeting of the Fund Management Committee of the Plaintiff Foundation in 2010 (hereinafter “third meeting of the Fund Management Committee”) held at the location described in paragraph (3) around June 17, 2010, Defendant 2:

① As to the necessity of capital increase with consideration and investment risk of Busan Savings Bank, I do not go again to the market after the lapse of 6 months."12% of the 12% of the 12% of the 12% of the 12% of the 12% of the 1988, and the 2010-day request the supervisor to appropriate the 10% of the 12% of the 1966-day reserves, and the 3.0% of the 196-day reserves, from the position of the Busan Savings Bank, it is now reported that .

② The Financial Supervisory Service’s demand for the accumulation of the allowance for bad debts to Busan Savings Bank and its amount, “The amount of the allowance for KRW 234.2 billion in itself was .... It was a non-legal assessment of the amount of the allowance for bad debts. The amount of the allowance for bad debts would be calculated as much as the normal operation of the bonus even if there was a shaking of the normal operation of the bonus. It was calculated as much as much as possible in the case of the application of the demand by the supervisor. This is the most difficult case data when considering that the proposal is the most difficult case data.”

③ As to the position of the Governor of the Financial Supervisory Service on the announcement and capital increase with the result of the inspection of the Busan Savings Bank, “I would know why the supervisor’s actual inspection was conducted, for three months or more, and if I would apply the criteria for requesting allowances to all savings banks to Busan Savings Bank, I would like to close the Korea Savings Bank; . I would like to talk with the Director of the Supervisory Board and the Director General in charge of the Financial Supervisory Service, and we would like to see that I would come up until the Busan Savings Bank increases its capital if I would like to see ... I would like to see that I would have come to see ... I would like to see ... I would like to see ... I would like to see ... I would like to see ? I would like to see ... I would like to see ? I would like to see the Busan Savings Bank’s capital increase. I would like to . I would like to .. I would like to .

④ With respect to the management and financial situation of the Busan Savings Bank, the fact that “this fact is nothing more than 100 billion won,” and the Busan Savings Bank basically does not need to do so, and it is very important to see how the Busan Savings Bank will come into the Busan Savings Bank after the entry of 100 billion won, or how it will come into the Busan Savings Bank, and it is very important to do so. our 100 billion won and our 100 billion won and our 100 billion won and our 100 billion won come into the Bank, and this company is no more invested in this company, and 00 billion won. . . . . if our 100 billion won and our 10 billion won and 00 billion won have been written, it is so far as our 10 billion won and 100 billion won have been written, the Busan Savings Bank will live in the Republic of Korea, i.e., to the effect that the Busan Savings Bank will live in the Republic of Korea.

⑤ With respect to the possibility of loss of investment, “B, for example, if you are ...., 12% of the total amount to be recovered in the market even if we receive 12% of the total amount to be recovered, . Ha we look at the land, hyp, match, 51% of the total amount to be recovered. . 10 foot Savings Bank is holding 51% of the total amount to be recovered? If we do so, us cannot recover 100 foot Savings Bank? If you do so, ? ... 20 billion won per week of the withdrawal?”

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1, 2, 8, and 27, the purport of the whole pleadings

D. The defendants' liability for damages

Comprehensively taking account of the above facts, the evidence as seen earlier and the whole purport of the pleading, the Defendants did not provide the Plaintiffs with the necessary information on the risk factors, etc. of preferential investment issued by the Busan Savings Bank at the time of recommending to make investments, as well as the Defendants’ act of providing a conclusive judgment on uncertain matters to the Plaintiffs or informing the Plaintiffs of the contents that could mislead them into being certain and reliable. These acts of the Defendants, along with the failure of the Plaintiffs to receive sufficient information, made an investment decision under the state of interference with the formation of a proper perception on the risk of investment in this case, the Defendants are liable to compensate the Plaintiffs for the damages caused thereby.

1) Violation of the duty of disclosure on the risk factors of investment

① At the time of proposing investment in the instant fund, Defendant 2 knew that: (a) around October 2010, the Busan Savings Bank’s share in the Daejeon Savings Bank was to be acquired in KRW 40.4 billion from the Han field limited company, etc., which was about four months after capital increase; (b) in this case, the Busan Savings Bank incurred loss of equity law; (c) (d) the Busan Savings Bank held 60% of equity interest in the project implementer; (b) the Busan Savings Bank’s loan or investment fund collection would depend on the success of Cambodia; (c) the Busan Savings Bank’s loan or investment fund collection would depend on the success of the project; (d) the share of the PF loan in the Busan Savings Bank and the savings bank was higher than that of other savings banks; and (e) a considerable number of them would be the

② However, at the time of proposing the investment of the Fund, Defendant 2 did not state on the product proposal, etc. issued by the Busan Savings Bank to acquire approximately KRW 40.4 billion from Han field limited company, etc. after about 4 months, and did not explain that the amount equivalent to the plaintiffs' investment funds will be used for the acquisition price of shares in Daejeon Savings Bank (the use of the investment funds in this case for the acquisition of shares of the company affiliated with such affiliate is inconsistent with the purport of the investment in this case, which clearly states that the nature of the investment in this case is appropriated as the nature of the investment in this case, and that the investment funds in this case will be used for the acquisition price of shares in the Daejeon Savings Bank (the use of the investment funds in this case is inconsistent with the purport of the investment in this case, e.g., investment in support of reorganization based on its own capital appropriated as the nature of the investment in this case), but it could obtain a large profit from the Busan Savings Bank, and there is a risk of big

③ In addition, the instant additional data prepared by the Defendant stated that the connection BS ratio between the end of June 2010 of the Busan Savings Bank, from 1.02 to 6.30% after the Busan Savings Bank’s sale of bonds, and from 1.02 to 6.30% after the purchase of bonds to the Campco, 100 billion won after the purchase of new shares by Samsung Foundation, etc., respectively, are 8.13% again. However, the amount of the connected BS ratio is calculated on the premise that the Plaintiff perceived the financial advisory fee of KRW 140 billion as profits. However, the Defendant omitted the statement that “the consolidated BS ratio was calculated on the premise that the Plaintiff perceived the financial advisory fee of KRW 140 billion as profits.” The above financial advisory fee is a large scale when providing the content to investors, and whether the Busan Savings Bank has human resources to provide such advisory services, and whether such profit-making formula can be continuously considered as a risk factor for investors’ investment decision-making.

④ Also, in the draft of the instant additional data, the allowances for bad debts to be additionally established according to the new standards of the Financial Supervisory Service were included in KRW 3,26.2 billion by linking the Busan Savings Bank and the Busan Second Savings Bank. However, the instant additional data only stated to the effect that there was no other issue except the bad debts allowances of KRW 2,34.2 billion as a result of the inspection by the Financial Supervisory Service.

⑤ Even if the Defendants did not notify the Plaintiffs of the matters set forth in paragraphs (1) through (4), as seen earlier, cannot be evaluated as fraudulent unfair trading or deception, such circumstance constitutes information on investment profits, such as the possibility of loss of the instant investment, and constitutes an important factor of consideration that affects the Plaintiffs’ judgment on investment. Therefore, the Defendants are obliged to notify the matters set forth in paragraphs (1) through (4) so that the Plaintiffs may make a reasonable investment in a state of accurate and balanced understanding of the profits and risks of the instant investment. However, the Defendants emphasizes only the certainty of annual 12% revenues, as seen thereafter.

(6) As long as the obligation to act is objectively acknowledged, even if the obligor did not recognize the existence of the obligation, it does not affect the establishment of a tort, and the same applies to the case where a tort is established due to a violation of the duty of disclosure. Thus, the illegality is not denied on the ground that the Defendants failed to recognize the existence of the duty of disclosure due to negligence or mistake (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da8709, Apr. 26, 2012).

2) Unfair solicitation

① On March 30, 2010, prior to the statement in the above paragraph (c) above, Defendant 2: (a) drafted and delivered a letter of intent to make an investment within the limit of KRW 100 billion to the conversion preferred owner that the Busan District Savings Bank issues; and (b) the Plaintiff Foundation thereafter asked the Defendants of various issues related to the investment of the instant fund, including the status of the PF loans of the Busan District Savings Bank, etc. Even after the third meeting of the Fund Management Committee; (c) according to the structure of the instant fund, the contract between Defendant KTB Asset Management and the trust company, etc. was concluded regularly; and (d) the Plaintiff Foundation paid KRW 50 billion to the Plaintiff Foundation from June 17, 2010, when the third Fund Management Committee was held, around June 29, 2010, when around 12 days from June 17, 2010, Defendant 201 to June 27, 2010.

② Whether an act constitutes “providing a conclusive judgment on an uncertain matter” or “an act of informing the contents that may mislead a person to believe that an uncertain matter is reliable” or “an act of notifying such information” should be judged on the basis of an average investor with ordinary care. Defendant 2 recommended the Plaintiffs to make an investment in the instant fund against Busan Savings Bank. As to the uncertain matters, such as the degree of risk of investment in the Busan Savings Bank, the amount of allowances for bad debts, the position of the Financial Supervisory Service, and the financial situation of the Busan Savings Bank after issuing new stocks with capital gains, etc., regarding the Plaintiffs, Defendant 2’s act of providing or notifying the Plaintiffs of the pertinent contents that are prohibited under Article 49 of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act when considering the average investor with ordinary care.”

③ In particular, Defendant 2 made a statement that, as stated in paragraph (3), “I ambling the Director of the Supervisory Service and the Director of the Financial Supervisory Service in charge of the inspection of the Busan Savings Bank and the affiliated savings bank” was “I ambling until the Busan Savings Bank increases its capital, if I ambling.” In light of the overall purport of the statement, even though Defendant 2 did not reach a false explanation of the situation of joint inspection of the Busan Savings Bank and affiliated savings bank and the position of the Financial Supervisory Service, it is clear that the statement constitutes an act of providing a conclusive judgment on uncertain matters or informing information that is likely to mislead others to believe that it is certain.

④ Although the Plaintiffs’ Fund Management Members are experts groups that can well understand the structure of the instant fund’s product and inherent risks, and the Plaintiffs’ investment inclinations and investment experience also gave rise to the risk of the instant fund, the Plaintiffs’ Fund Management Members and Defendant 2’s friendly relationship, Defendant 2’s career in the financial investment business community and management of the Plaintiffs’ funds prior to the instant investment. Although some changes were made by reflecting the opinions of other Fund Management Members, the basic structure of the instant investment is consistent with Defendant 2’s proposal, even though the Plaintiffs did not decide on the instant investment solely based on Defendant 2’s exaggerated speech and behavior, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiffs affected Defendant 2’s conclusive and conviction in the instant investment decision.

5. Scope of liability for damages

A. Relevant legal principles

Property damage caused by a tort is a difference between the property disadvantage incurred therefrom, i.e., the property condition that would have existed without a tort and the current property status. It includes active damages that would have lost existing interests and passive damages that could not obtain profits that could have accrued from the future. Whether such damage actually occurred or not should be determined reasonably in light of social norms (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 91Da33070, Jun. 23, 1992; Supreme Court Decision 2010Da76368, Jul. 28, 2011). Meanwhile, under the Indirect Investment Act, the amount of damage sustained by an investor due to an unfair solicitation by an asset management company would be an amount calculated by subtracting the total amount of money recovered or recoverable from the investment principal based on the beneficiary certificates acquired from such investment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da29649, Jan. 24, 2013).

B. The plaintiffs' damages

1) On June 29, 2010, the fact that the plaintiffs invested KRW 50 billion each in the Fund of this case on June 29, 2010 is as seen earlier, and the fact that the plaintiffs are not able to recover all of the investment principal invested in the Fund of this case is no dispute between the parties.

2) Furthermore, we examine whether there exists any remaining value of the beneficiary certificates of the Fund.

On the other hand, the following circumstances acknowledged by the above evidence and the purport of the oral argument are as follows: ① The investment of this case is made in the structure where the Korea Securities Bank, the trustee company, takes over convertible shares issued by the Busan Savings Bank; ② the amount equivalent to 12.1% per annum from the Busan Savings Bank based on the issue price of 56,500 won per stock during the period in which the company holds preferential shares; and the Korea Securities Bank, the sales price at the time of the above dividends or the sale of shares, is paid to the Plaintiffs, the beneficiary; ② as the result of the inspection of the assets and liabilities of the Financial Supervisory Service as seen above, the Busan Savings Bank, Busan Savings Bank, Busan Savings Bank, Busan Savings Bank, Daejeon Savings Bank, Daejeon Savings Bank, and Jeonju Savings Bank are capital-type; ② the ratio BS rate is 50.29%, -43.48%, -28.29%, -29%, -11.56% of the total value of the investment securities of this case, the remaining amount of the underlying assets of this case is equivalent to 200.

C. Limitation on liability

In light of the aforementioned evidence and the following circumstances recognized by the purport of the pleading, the amount of damages to be paid by the Defendants to the Plaintiffs shall be limited to 40% of the amount of damages suffered by the Plaintiffs under the principle of fairness.

1) The fund of this case is invested in convertible priority shares issued by the Busan Savings Bank, and is placed in the order higher than the creditor when the Busan Savings Bank liquidates the bankruptcy due to the financial failure, and there is a high investment risk inevitably in pursuing the high 12% annual income. Such investment risk should, in principle, be borne by the plaintiffs, who are investors.

2) The fund management members of the Plaintiffs, who decided to make the instant investment, constituted experts with considerable expertise in the financial investment sector, and actually changed the investment structure of this case by reflecting the opinions of the fund management members of the Plaintiffs’ Fund.

3) The occurrence of the loss of the Fund is fundamentally attributable to the window dressing accounting of the Busan Savings Bank. This is not revealed in the assessment of asset soundness conducted from March 2010 to June, 201. Thus, even if the Defendants, prior to the determination of the investment of this case, did not undergo an actual inspection of the Busan Savings Bank, it is difficult to readily find out the fact of window dressing accounting of the Busan Savings Bank.

4) The phrase “major investment risk” of the product proposal of this case prepared by the Defendants includes risks of deterioration of business environment, minimum dividend unpaid risks, and Exit Risk. The Plaintiffs’ Fund Management Committee members were also aware of the possibility of principal loss of the fund of this case, which is high-profit goods.

D. The defendants' assertion on the determination of damages, etc. and the determination thereof

1) The Defendants asserted that the Plaintiffs, in the status of the beneficial interest holder of the instant fund after receiving the entire amount of damages from the Defendants, are obliged to transfer the beneficial interest to the Defendants in order to prevent dual benefits that may be compensated again based on the beneficiary certificates, since the Korea Securities Bank, a trustee company of the instant fund, was distributed in the bankruptcy procedure, can be incorporated into trust property and thus, can be compensated for damages based on the beneficiary certificates again. However, in order to prevent double benefits that may be compensated for losses based on the beneficiary certificates after the closing of argument in the instant case, the Plaintiffs are transferred the beneficial interest to the Defendants, and the Daewoo Securities Company and the beneficiary certificate investors account prepared and kept, have the duty to request a substitution statement to the effect that the beneficial interest was transferred to

2) However, the Defendants’ aforementioned assertion is difficult to accept for the following reasons.

As seen earlier, if the value of the underlying asset of the Fund is 0 persons or more, the value of the instant beneficiary certificates is 0, thereby the Plaintiffs’ damages are determined. It does not change merely because the Korean Securities Finance, a trustee company of the Fund, can incorporate the damages therefrom into trust property by exercising the damage claim against any third party, such as the Busan Savings Bank, and thus, can be included in trust property. This is because, for example, even if the victim who lost his/her property right due to the tortfeasor’s tort can be compensated for damages by exercising the contractual right or damage claim against any third party, other than the perpetrator, such circumstance alone does not change from the fact that the amount equivalent to the value of the property right is deemed as the amount of damages, thereby not hindering the perpetrator from exercising his/her damage claim against the perpetrator (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da47677, Mar. 26, 2009).

In other words, the plaintiffs, who are beneficiary certificates holders of the fund of this case, suffered losses from the loss of their investments due to the defendants' tort (violation of duty of disclosure and unfair solicitation) and thus, they can seek damages from the defendants. However, on the other hand, the plaintiffs may not claim damages from officers and employees of Busan Savings Bank's financial statements, and Busan Savings Bank's financial statements, or 5% of direct damages from the Busan Savings Bank's Busan Savings Bank's financial statements, or from Korea Securities Finance, which bears the duty of care for the holders of beneficiary certificates, to acquire the underlying assets of the fund of this case, which are valuable due to the window dressing Accounting through the window dressing Accounting. In particular, the ratio of liability to the plaintiffs of the Busan Savings Bank's financial statements, which was recognized in this case, can not be viewed as 40% of the defendants' liability ratio recognized in this case and 20% of the total of 68% estimated dividend ratio of the bankruptcy claims of the Busan Savings Bank's financial statements, which were claimed by the defendants.

Furthermore, according to Articles 763 and 399 of the Civil Act, in a case where a tortfeasor compensates for the entire amount of the damage or the value of the article or the right infringed, the defendant can subrogate the person who received the damage as to the article or right. The defendants do not actually pay the damage compensation ordering payment in the judgment of this case, and even if the plaintiffs are paid the damage compensation from the defendants, it is compensated for some overlapping part of the damage compensation claim against the bankrupt Busan Savings Bank. Thus, the defendants cannot subrogate the damages claim against the bankrupt Busan Savings Bank or the right based on the fund's beneficiary certificate.

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable for damages to each of the Plaintiffs, each of which is KRW 20 billion (50 billion of investment principal x 40%) and the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum prescribed by the Civil Act from June 29, 2010 to October 30, 2014, which is the date when the Defendants rendered a substantial judgment to dispute on the existence or scope of their performance obligations, and at the rate of 20% per annum prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the date of full payment.

6. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge O Young-ok (Presiding Judge)

1) From 2005 to 2018, the project cost required for the development of a new city by reclaiming at least three km away from the flaxe x to Northwest through the construction of roads, public facilities, commercial facilities, residential facilities, etc. on the reclaimed land is 2 billion US dollars. The first phase is 94,174 square meters from 2005 to 2007 to 130,514 square meters from 209 to 2009; the second phase is 130,514 square meters of residential facilities, such as apartment houses, canals, and roads; the second phase was 173,838 square meters of residential facilities; the third phase is 208 to 2011 to 206 square meters of residential facilities; the construction of private apartment facilities, such as officetels; the construction of commercial facilities, shopping facilities, and commercial facilities from 2008 to 206 square meters from 2008 to 2016 square meters of commercial facilities; the 2014207,214 square meters from 206.

(2) The specific period for each savings bank’s inspection is as follows:

3) The Financial Supervisory Service means the connection BISD ratio between the Busan Savings Bank that calculated the reclassification of asset soundness.

4) The Busan Savings Bank means the connection BISD ratio between the Busan Savings Bank and the Busan Savings Bank.

(5) The Plaintiffs trusted financial statements in which the window dressing accounting was made and invested in the instant fund to purchase 50 billion won beneficiary certificates of the instant fund, and did not perform such investment act if there was no window dressing accounting. Therefore, it is determined that the Plaintiffs can directly exercise their rights to claim damages for tort against the officers and employees of the Busan Savings Bank and the Busan Savings Bank.