All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the duty to protect investors at the investment recommendation stage

A. The asset management company provided for in the former Indirect Investment Asset Management Business Act (amended by Act No. 8635 of Aug. 3, 2007 and enforced on Feb. 4, 2009; hereinafter “former Indirect Investment Act”) bears the duty of care to protect investors so that investors can make reasonable investment decisions based on their information by providing investors with correct information on the profit structure and risk factors of investment trust.

The duty to protect investors at the investment recommendation stage of the asset management company is not excluded solely for the reason that the investor is not an ordinary investor but a professional investor, and only the characteristics and risk level of the investment trust property, experience and expertise of investors are considered in determining the scope and degree of the duty to protect investors.

In addition, when recommending investors to acquire beneficiary certificates for sale of beneficiary certificates, the selling company prescribed by the former Indirect Investment Act shall not engage in any act that may mislead investors with regard to important matters concerning investors. Furthermore, the selling company is obligated to inform investors of the characteristics of indirect investment, such as the possibility of actual dividends and loss of originals, and the trust terms and conditions concerning investment risks, and the main contents of investment prospectus, with sufficient and accurate

(Article 56(2) and Article 57(1)(b) of the former Indirect Investment Act.

The judgment below

According to the reasoning, the court below held that ① the fund of this case as stated in the judgment below is likely to incur principal loss because it invested in a business highly dangerous, and it is difficult for investors to directly understand the current status of investment objects in foreign countries. Thus, the defendant created the fund of this case, such as the specific status of the development project of this case, the construction loan-free industry, and the failure