The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the records of the instant case, the following facts are revealed.

The plaintiff is a public interest corporation established on March 20, 2003 pursuant to the Act on the Establishment and Operation of Public Interest Corporations (hereinafter referred to as the "Public Interest Corporation Act") for the purpose of scholarship projects.

At the time of establishment, the plaintiff's fundamental property was KRW 500 million of time deposit deposited in K.

B. On May 28, 2003, the Plaintiff entered into a comprehensive discretionary investment contract with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant discretionary investment contract”) and deposited KRW 500 million in the consignment transaction account in the name of the Plaintiff established in the Defendant.

C. According to the instant discretionary investment contract, F, which was the head of G branch, the Defendant’s branch, has invested the said money in bonds with repurchase agreement, corporate bonds, funds, etc., and has paid the Plaintiff revenues therefrom.

However, on March 6, 2008, F purchased the beneficiary certificates of “I privately placed asset investment trust” (hereinafter “the Fund”) in the amount of KRW 480 million out of the money entrusted by the Plaintiff.

The fund of this case is a structure that sells or charters a ship after building or purchasing the ship with funds, etc. collected from investors, and distributes its profits to investors.

Around October 2008, the Fund could not proceed with the originally scheduled business due to the aggravation of shipping games following the global financial crisis. Around August 3, 2011, the amount of the Fund assessed was reduced to KRW 9 million.

2. The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit claiming the payment of damages against the Defendant.

The reason for the claim was that the Plaintiff suffered damages equivalent to KRW 480,000,000 of the principal of the investment, and this was that F, an employee of the Defendant, was in violation of the suitability principle while recommending investment. Thus, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff as an employer of F or joint tortfeasor.

The first instance court does not explain to the Plaintiff by F.