See Attached List 1 (Law Firm Shin, Attorneys Kim-nam et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korean Asset Management Co., Ltd. and four others (Law Firm Rated, etc., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

October 23, 2009

1. Defendant Korea Asset Management Co., Ltd. and Defendant Han Bank will pay each of the plaintiffs the amount of prize and each of the above quoted amounts listed in the separate sheet No. 2 attached hereto to each of the plaintiffs, 6% per annum from September 22, 2009 to November 20, 209, and 20% per annum from November 21, 2009 to the date of full payment.

2. The plaintiffs' remaining claims against Defendant Korea Asset Management Co., Ltd. and Defendant Han Bank, and each claims against Defendant Korea Bank, Defendant Korea Investment Securities Co., Ltd., and Defendant Dong Dong Securities Co., Ltd. are dismissed.

3. Of the litigation costs, 1/5 of the costs incurred between the Plaintiffs and Defendant Korea Asset Management Co., Ltd., and Defendant Han Bank are assessed against the Plaintiffs, and 4/5 of the costs incurred between Defendant Korea Asset Management Co., Ltd., Defendant Han Bank, Defendant Han Bank, Plaintiffs and Defendant Han Bank, Defendant Korea Investment Securities Co., Ltd, and Defendant Dong Securities Co., Ltd

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

Defendant Korea Asset Management Co., Ltd, Defendant Han Bank, and Defendant Han Bank Co., Ltd. shall pay to the Plaintiffs No. 1 through No. 208 listed in the separate sheet No. 1 listed in the separate sheet No. 2, an amount of 6% per annum from June 21, 2007 to the date of final delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case, and an amount of 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment. Defendant Korea Asset Management Co., Ltd, Defendant Han Bank, and Defendant Han Bank Co., Ltd. shall pay to the Plaintiffs No. 209 to 213 listed in the separate sheet No. 1 listed in the separate sheet No. 2007 to the date of final delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case from June 21, 2007 to the date of full payment, the amount of 6% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment, and the amount of 20% from the next day to the next day to the date of full payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Status of the parties

Defendant Korea Asset Management Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Korea Asset Management”) is a truster company under the former Act on Business of Operating Indirect Investment and Assets (amended by Act No. 8635 of Aug. 3, 2007 and repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (amended by Act No. 8635 of Feb. 4, 2009; hereinafter “former Investment Act”), which is established for the purpose of managing the assets of the indirect investment fund, and is the company that has established Korea’s 2St Derivatives Investment Trust Korea KW-8 (hereinafter “instant fund”) and issued its beneficiary certificates. Defendant Han Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Han Bank”) is a trustee company in charge of storing and managing the investment trust property of the instant fund in accordance with the trust agreement with Defendant Korea Asset Management Corporation, Defendant Korea Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Woori Bank”), Defendant Korea Investment Securities Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Korea Investment Securities Co., Ltd., Ltd.,” and Defendant Dong Securities Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Securities Co.”).

B. Details of the structure and investment prospectus of the Fund

1) The structure of the Fund

A) The Fund is a derivatives investment trust that invests most of the trust assets in over-the-counter derivatives linked to common stocks of Korea and our common stocks, with the trust contract term until the date falling under the terms and conditions of redemption of over-the-counter derivatives in December 21, 2007; June 20, 2008; December 22, 2008; June 22, 2009; June 22, 2009; and December 22, 2009; and June 22, 2010.

B) The OTC derivatives subject to the investment of the Fund shall be the goods with an opportunity to repay at an early rate of five months every six months and meet the conditions of return on the date of early redemption (if all the closing prices of common stocks and common stocks of Korea are above the respective exercising prices), the Fund shall redeem profits calculated at the rate of 12% per annum with principal and 12% per annum. Even if the above conditions of return are met at the maturity, profits calculated at the rate of 12% per annum (12% per annum x 3 =36% per annum) shall be repaid. If the above conditions of return are not satisfied by the maturity date, profits calculated at the rate of 5% per annum with principal and 5% per annum (5% per annum x 3 = 15% per annum) shall be paid during the investment period, and if there is any issue less than 55% per annum per annum per annum, the amount of principal shall be reduced by 06% per annum per annum per six months before maturity, the average price of 26% per six months and per six months per six months per annum.

2) Contents of the instant investment prospectus (Evidence A2, No. 41)

A) Of the contents of a summary of two copies of the instant investment prospectus, the parts relevant to the instant case are as follows.

Ⅱ Investment Information

1. The main contents of the table classification contained in the main text are 1. The investment of most of the trust property in the over-the-counter derivatives linked to the Korea General Electricity and the Korea General Finance Holdings seeking to increase long-term capital for investors; 2. The investment of most of the investment property in the over-the-counter derivatives generated by linking the main investment strategies with the Korea General Electricity and the Korea General Finance Shares. The over-the-counter derivatives, which is scheduled to be investment, is a product with an opportunity of early redemption and an opportunity of maturity repayment every six months, whose average of the date of early redemption (short-term repayment) is fixed in advance, shall make an investment for three years, the contract term of the over-the-counter derivatives, in which the principal and 12% profits are not paid early redemption, and thus, it is suitable for investment management companies to make an investment in the over-the-counter derivatives market at the market price for redemption, derivatives trading, investment risk (long-term investment risk level of investment risk) or investment risk at the market price for investment risk rating 5.

B) Of the main text of the instant investment prospectus, the parts related to the instant case are as follows, and the following are emphasized in red and blue color with respect to credit risk of the opposite contractual party:

Part I:Basic information on investment trust

Ⅱ Investment Information

3. Major investment risks;

This investment trust shall have the following major investment risks:

(a) Risk of redemption in the middle: In the case of redemption, the principal loss shall be incurred by imposing redemption fees according to the investment period; and

(b) Derivatives investment risk: Risk of depreciation of underlying assets of over-the-counter derivatives incorporated;

(3) Credit risk of the opposite contractual party: risk that the principal and interest of over-the-counter derivatives cannot be received from time due to the aggravation of the other contractual party's credit status (the other contractual party of over-the-counter derivatives incorporated into this fund shall be subject to the credit rating of BNP Aribs as of February 7, 2006, S&PA as of February 6, 2006)

(4) liquidity risk: liquidity is low because it must be directly traded with the trading partner of over-the-counter derivatives.

Part II Investment Trust's detailed information

Ⅰ. Investment strategies, investment risks, etc.;

2. Investment risks;

○ Credit Risk: Generally, because OTC derivatives are directly traded with the company that entered into a contract for OTC derivatives, redemption of OTC derivatives may not be received from time due to the company's business environment, financial standing, and aggravation of credit standing.

In light of the scale of the securities market, the exchange risk may be restricted due to the liquidity shortage of the items to be invested in cases where the amount of transactions from the trust property is invested in an item that is not abundant, and this may cause the decline in the value of the trust property. Generally, over-the-counter derivatives shall be traded directly with the company that entered into a contract of over-the-counter derivatives, unlike other securities, and liquidity is low. Therefore, if it is intended to sell over-the-counter derivatives even before maturity, the sale may not be smooth, and there is a risk of price loss due to the sale even before maturity.

3. Object of investment;

(a) Money is paid in accordance with the terms and conditions set in advance in proportion to the fluctuation in the ordinary stock owners of Korea and our ordinary financial market in accordance with Article 2 (1) 1 through 4 of the Securities and Exchange Act, state bonds and local government bonds under Article 2 (1) 1 through 4 of the Securities and Exchange Act, bonds and debentures issued by corporations established under special Acts (credit rating shall be more than A-class, and stock-related corporate bonds, private equity bond bonds and bonds issued pursuant to an asset-backed securitization plan under the Asset-Backed Securitization Act, not more than 30% of asset-backed securities; excluding bonds issued in accordance with an asset-backed securitization plan under the Asset-Backed Securitization Act, bonds issued in accordance with the Special Purpose Companies for Asset-Backed Securitization Act, bonds issued and sold in accordance with the Special Purpose Companies for Asset-Backed Securitization Act, or bills issued and sold or arranged by financial institutions under Article 6 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Securities and Exchange Act, or mortgage-backed bonds with a maturity of not less than 30% of investment securities under Article 2-34 of the Enforcement Decree of the Securities and Exchange Act:

Ⅱ The appraisal of assets;

2. Evaluation of assets:

- In calculating the base price, the appraisal of the investment trust property shall be made in accordance with the relevant laws and regulations, but it is difficult to compute the fair value because there is no transaction record on the appraisal base date, or assets the sale of which is difficult or the sale of which is limited or difficult can be assessed at the price determined by the Act and subordinate statutes

- Major contents of OTC derivatives assessment methods

(a) Where at least two underlying assets are redeemed halfway, the evaluation shall be made by using Monteulates;

B. For example, in the event that the underlying assets are Korean common stock owners and Korean common stock owners, the future stock prices are predicted by taking advantage of the correlation between individual changes in Korean power and Korean common stock owners and Korean common stock owners.

(c) In estimating the prices at the future time, the verg-noral distribution is expected by using Cholesky Decomposition, taking into account the correlation between two assets, and lg-noral distribution is predicted using these lg-noral distribution;

(d) determine the amount of redemption at the future using the predicted share at the time of the interim redemption decision and apply the rate corresponding to the credit rating of the securities company, which is the counterpart to the option, to the amount determined as at the time of the interim redemption decision. This method reflects the observery defum risk of options;

Matters concerning asset management companies in Part III and persons related to investment trusts;

Ⅰ Asset management companies;

2. Major business;

(2) Obligations and Responsibilities of an asset management company

(b) Responsibility of an asset management company;

If an asset management company causes loss to beneficiaries by committing an act in violation of Acts and subordinate statutes, terms and conditions of trust, or investment prospectus or neglecting its duties, it shall be liable to compensate for such loss.

Ⅲ Trustee Company; and

2. Major business;

(2) Obligations and responsibilities of trustee companies

If the instructions of the asset management company on the management of the investment trust property violate the Acts and subordinate statutes, the trust terms and conditions, or the investment prospectus, the trustee company shall request the asset management company to withdraw, modify, or correct such instructions.

3) Details of the terms and conditions of the instant trust (Evidence A3)

The terms and conditions of the instant trust do not mention the other party to the transaction of over-the-counter derivatives, and the terms and conditions of the instant trust are as follows.

Article 4 (Taking Effect of Trust Deed)

(1) The terms and conditions of this trust shall become effective when the asset management company and the trustee company conclude the trust contract in accordance with the terms and conditions of this trust.

(2) When the beneficiary has purchased the beneficiary certificates of an investment trust, it shall be deemed that the beneficiary accepts the matters stipulated in this trust deed.

Article 6 (Business of Asset Management Company and Trustee Company)

(1) Every asset management company shall create and terminate an investment trust, and perform the business of operating and operating investment trust properties.

(2) A trustee company shall keep and manage the investment trust property, perform an asset management company's duty to monitor instructions for management of the investment trust property, check whether the evaluation of the investment trust property is fair and the calculation of the base price, etc.

Article 7 (Responsibilities of Asset Management Companies, etc.)

If an asset management company, trustee company, or distributor commits an act in violation of Acts and subordinate statutes, trust terms and conditions, or investment prospectus, or causes loss to beneficiaries due to negligence in performing its business, it shall be liable to compensate for such loss

Article 19 (Calculation and Public Disclosure of Base Price)

(1) The base price publicly announced on the same day shall be calculated by dividing the amount obtained by subtracting total liabilities from total assets of an investment trust stated in the balance sheet as of the immediately preceding day (hereinafter referred to as "total net assets") by total number of units of beneficiary certificates on the immediately preceding day, and the calculation shall be made by adding the amount of less than KRW 1,00 to the second place which is less than KRW 4 per unit of less

(2) In the calculation of the base price under paragraph (1), the appraisal of investment trust property shall be made in accordance with the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes and regulations, but the fair assessment of value is difficult due to the lack of transaction performance on the appraisal base date, and the sale of assets difficult to be restricted or sold may be appraised at the price determined by the committee for the appraisal of indirect investment property based on the price under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes and regulations. In particular, in the case of over-the-counter derivatives,

(3) The base price on the date of creation of the investment trust for the first time shall be 1,00 won, and one unit shall be 1 won.

Article 36 (Objects of Investment, etc.)

(1) Every asset management company shall manage the investment trust property by the following investment objects and investment methods:

1. The following derivatives from among over-the-counter derivatives under subparagraph 9 of Article 2 of the Act (hereinafter referred to as "over-the-counter derivatives"):

(a) payment of money under pre-determined conditions that would be linked to the price fluctuation of Korean common stock and Korean common stock;

(b) Up to the maximum loss amount invested in over-the-counter derivatives;

2. State bonds, local government bonds, bonds issued by a corporation established under special Acts, and corporate bonds under Article 2 (1) 1 through 4 of the Securities and Exchange Act (hereinafter referred to as "bonds"), and corporate bonds (credit rating shall be at least A-, and stock-related corporate bonds, privately placed bonds, and bonds issued pursuant to an asset-backed securitization plan under the Asset-Backed Securitization Act shall be excluded herefrom);

3. Debentures, special purpose companies for securitization under the Asset-Backed Securitization Act, or mortgage-backed bonds or mortgage-backed securities issued pursuant to the Korea Housing Finance Corporation Act (hereinafter referred to as "asset-backed securities");

4. Bills or bonds issued, sold, or mediated by financial institutions under Article 6 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Securities and Exchange Act, or bills or notes under subparagraph 4 of Article 2-3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Securities and Exchange Act, the credit rating of which is not less than A2-related (hereinafter referred to as “bill”);

5. Transactions with the proper property of a trustee company under Article 108 of the Enforcement Decree of the former Cross-State Act; and

4) The summary of this case’s product (AA4) prepared by Defendant Korea Asset Management Co., Ltd. to provide for investors does not mention the other party to the transaction of the instant over-the-counter derivatives, and the investment proposal (AA5) provided by Defendant Korea Asset Management Co., Ltd. to the selling company shall be more than the national credit rating (S&P, Mody’s Mody’s Mody’s Mody’s Mody’s Mody’s Mady’s Mady’s Mady’s Mady’s Mady’s Mady’s Mady’s Mady’s Mady’s Ma

C. The plaintiffs' purchase of beneficiary certificates of the fund of this case

1) From June 18, 2007 to June 21, 2007, the Plaintiffs paid each amount invested by each Plaintiff listed in the separate sheet No. 2, and the Plaintiffs No. 1 to 208 listed in the separate sheet No. 209 to 213, respectively, purchased the Fund beneficiary certificates from each Defendant’s Korean Investment Securities, and the Plaintiff No. 214 listed in the separate sheet No. 209 to 213 listed in the separate sheet No. 1 from each Defendant’s Korean Investment Securities, respectively.

2) While joining the Fund, the Plaintiffs received the instant investment prospectus, including a core description, from the employees in charge of each selling company, while explaining the main contents thereof.

3) On the other hand, on June 18, 2007, the official document (No. 9) sent by the Defendant Woori Bank to all branches of the Defendant Woori Bank on June 18, 2007, stating that “the sales limit is 20 billion won,” and “the limit is 0509,” and in relation to the notice of risk of investment instruments, the statement stating that “the redemption limit is 0509,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,000,00,000,00

(d) Change of trading partners of over-the-counter derivatives;

1) Defendant Korea Asset Management decided to trade over-the-counter derivatives within the limit of 20,000,000 won with the first trading partner's Paris (BNP Paribs) and maximum of 20,000,000,000 won. Defendant Korea Asset Management prepared the instant investment prospectus stated Vienna Paris, and provided it to the selling company upon confirmation of the contents of the instant investment prospectus from Defendant Han Bank on June 4, 2007.

2) Since then, as a result of attracting investors of the fund of this case, the fund of this case became unable to conduct transactions of the non-UNFCCC Paris and OTC derivatives in the size of approximately KRW 28,000,000,000. The defendant's assets management decided to change the transaction partner of the OTC derivatives to Lehman Bros Asia (Lehman Ltd.) under the payment guarantee of Lehman Ltd. (Lehman Ltd.) holding company, and to change the transaction partner to Lehman Bros Ltd. (Ld.) with the investment prospectus changed to Lehman Asia. The investment prospectus changed to the transaction partner to Lehman Asia on June 25, 2007 was prepared and submitted to the Financial Supervisory Service on June 27, 2007 with the confirmation of the defendant Han Bank, the trustee company, the trustee company, and the defendant Han Bank purchased the OTC derivatives derivatives in its entirety under the payment guarantee of the OTC derivatives of this case.

3) On February 7, 2006, the credit rating of the Vien Parisb at the time of sale of the Fund was “A” as of the base of the Mody’s Mody’s Sc. Ltd., one of the three credit rating companies around the world (hereinafter “Ndice”), “A2” on February 6, 2006, one of the three credit assessment companies around the world, and “S&P” (hereinafter “S&P”)’s credit risk guarantee fees for the sale of CD 1’s credit risk at the time of the sale of the Fund, and the credit rating of the CD 5’s credit risk guarantee fees for the sale of the CD 1’s credit risk is “A1”, “S&P” as of May 31, 2006, and the basic credit rating system of S&P’s credit rating of underlying assets at the time of the sale of the Fund’s credit risk is as follows.

The credit rating of credit rating of the table classified in the main text is appropriate for the credit status Aa 0.03% higher of credit rating Aaa 0.03% higher of credit rating, but investment risk Aa 0.07% A2.07% A30.15% higher than Aa 10.15% higher than A 10.22% higher of credit status A20.28% A30.28% A30.28% Ba10.35% higher of credit (at present, there is no problem of interest payment and principal repayment) Ba20.43% Ba 20.43% Ba30.56% of investment share and below grade Ba10.73% of investment share Ba10.95% B1.39% B1.204% higher than B04% higher than A.29.305% higher of credit status C03.205.30% of credit status C05.203.

AAA’s debt repayment ability is very high due to the extremely high level of investment grade AA’s credit rating rating included in the main text. Although there is no significant difference from the higher level, A’s debt repayment ability is high. A’s debt repayment ability is sufficient for A’s higher level of higher level companies. A’s debt repayment ability is sufficient to be affected by the economic stabilization and market environment change. However, as for a higher level company, B’s debt repayment ability is relatively low in the near future due to the economic erosion and market environment change and the low-grade B’s financial situation and economic situation are relatively low, but as for a higher level company, B is currently able to repay the debt when the economic situation and economic situation are worse, but it seems that the CCC’s debt repayment ability is likely to be fulfilled only when the financial situation, financial situation, and economic situation are friendly compared to a higher level company, and it appears that the CCC’s debt repayment ability is considerably high as of the present date, and the CB’s application or any similar situation or the repayment of principal and interest is continuing.

4) According to the “D risk management scheme for over-the-counter derivatives transactions” prepared inside around June 23, 2005 by the Defendant Company with due care for investment and management of structuralized securities in which derivatives, such as swap and options, such as the Financial Supervisory Service, are inherent, and the relevant internal rules and business process are properly reflected, in the case of an overseas corporation, two or more appraisers from among the three credit rating companies in the world can make transactions possible.

5) After changing the trading partner of over-the-counter derivatives, Defendant Korea Asset Management Company published the changed details through the Internet homepage of Defendant Korea Asset Management and Asset Management Association, and entered the name of OTC derivatives in the asset management report that was provided to investors every three months as “LEHN BRTRS 35,” but did not directly notify the Plaintiffs and selling companies before and after the opposite contractual party’s change. Meanwhile, Defendant Han Bank provided a report on the OTC derivatives issuing company on July 28, 2008, which included the change from Vienna Paris to Asia.

(e) Bankruptcy, etc. of the Entertainment Business;

1) On September 15, 2008, an Investment Company of OTC derivatives, an issuer of OTC derivatives, filed an application for bankruptcy protection with the New York Southern District Court of New York, New York on September 15, 2008, the Plaintiffs became unable to fully recover the investment amount upon early repayment and maturity of the Fund (the Fund of this case is assessed as zero won after deducting the base price in accordance with attached Form 13 of the Indirect Investment Asset Management Regulation).

2) Meanwhile, the conditions for early redemption of the Fund were not satisfied until the date of the closure of the instant argument. If the other party to the OTC derivatives assumes it as Paris, the base price of the Fund under the instant investment prospectus and the trust terms and conditions as of September 21, 2009, which is close to the date of the closing of argument, is KRW 810.39 won.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 9, 11, Eul 1 to 25, Eul 1 to 5, Eul 1 to 5, Eul 1, Eul 1 to 5, Eul 1 to 5, Eul 1 to 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' assertion

A. The Defendants, due to the reasons attributable to the Defendants, are unable to perform the obligation to conclude the OTC derivatives transaction contract with the Vienna Paris, which is the most important obligation in the instant investment trust contract, and the instant investment trust contract was rescinded by the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case. As such, the Defendants are obligated to pay each Plaintiffs the legal interest and delay damages from June 21, 2007, which is the final payment date of the Plaintiffs’ respective investment amounts and each of the above investment amounts as stated in the separate sheet 2.

B. The Defendants did not notify at all of the possibility of changing the trading partner of the over-the-counter derivatives incorporated into the instant fund, and knew that the short-term loans operated to facilitate redemption of beneficiary certificates and utilize funds and all of the deposits of financial institutions ( approximately 98.4%) out of the investment funds will be paid to the trading partner of the over-the-counter derivatives. However, the investment prospectus provided to the Plaintiffs states that the subject of investment and the investment limit should be more than 70% of over-the-counter derivatives, not more than 30% of bonds, not more than 30% of asset-backed securities, not more than 30% of bills, and not more than 30% of bills, and made the Plaintiffs enter into the instant investment trust contract without any error as to the composition and limit of the assets subject to investment. Since the Defendants cancelled the instant investment trust contract by delivery of a duplicate of the complaint of this case, they are obligated to pay each of the Plaintiffs interest and delay damages from June 21, 2007.

C. Defendant Korea Asset Management Agency changed the trading partner of OTC derivatives to NIB Asia without the Plaintiffs’ prior consent. Unlike the investment prospectus of this case, Defendant Han Bank purchased OTC derivatives issued by NIB Asia without demanding the withdrawal, alteration, or correction of management instructions for OTC derivatives issued by NIB Asia. Defendant Korea Bank, Defendant Korea Investment Securities, and Defendant Dongbu Securities were sold in excess of KRW 20,000,000 with the beneficiary certificates of the fund of this case in excess of KRW 20,000,000,000 and KRW 20,000,000,000 or more than 20,000,000 or more than 20,000, or more than 30,0000,000,000 or more than 20,000,000 or more than 20,000,0000, or more than 30,000,000 investment amount and more than 20,000.

3. Determination on the claim for Defendant Korea Asset Management

A. Whether Defendant Korea Asset Management Co., Ltd bears the duty of managing over-the-counter derivatives trading partners to pay for Paris immediately

The plaintiffs asserted that the defendant's asset management company owes the duty to invest in the over-the-counter derivatives issued by the Vienna Paris against the plaintiffs as stated in the investment prospectus of this case, and that the defendant's asset management company stated the counter-party to the over-the-counter derivatives in the investment prospectus of this case as Paris is merely a fact that the counter-party to the over-the-counter derivatives, which is scheduled to be incorporated into the fund of this case, is a non-UNFCCC Paris, and that the counter-party to the over-the-counter derivatives is not immediately identified in the Paris Paris. Thus, we examine whether the defendant's assets management company bears the duty to invest in the over-the-counter derivatives issued by the Vien

Article 28(1) of the former Investment Trust Act provides that “Any asset management company that intends to create an investment trust shall conclude a trust contract with a trustee company,” and Article 4(2) of the instant Trust Clause provides that “the beneficiary shall be deemed to accept the matters stipulated in the instant Trust Clause at the time of the purchase of the beneficiary certificates of the investment trust.” Thus, the Plaintiffs, the beneficiaries, are entitled to participate in the instant investment trust contract through the purchase of the instant fund beneficiary certificates from the Defendant Bank, the Defendant Korean Investment Securities, and the Defendant East Securities, and enter into a contractual relationship with the Defendant Han Bank, the asset management company, and the trustee company.”

Meanwhile, Article 56 of the former Investment Trust Act provides that an asset management company of investment trust issues indirect investment securities shall prepare an investment prospectus and provide it to the selling company after obtaining confirmation from the trustee company as to whether the content of the investment prospectus conforms to the Acts and subordinate statutes and the trust deed, and the selling company shall provide the investor with the investment prospectus in recommending the acquisition of indirect investment securities, explain the major contents of the investment prospectus, including the relevant investment prospectus including the concept and method of operation of the relevant indirect investment fund, the fact that the investment principal is not guaranteed, matters concerning the fund operation professionals of the relevant indirect investment fund, the performance record, and other matters prescribed by the Presidential Decree for protecting investors.

As above, the former Act requires the trustee company to confirm the investment prospectus with respect to the investment prospectus, and the truster company to provide the investment prospectus that contains the contents of the trust agreement, not the trust agreement, but the main contents thereof. The investor read the contents of the investment prospectus after understanding the contents of the investment prospectus and then accepting them. Therefore, the investment prospectus is prepared in advance by the truster company, which is one party to the investment trust contract, to enter into the investment trust contract with a large number of investors, in order to supplement and specify the investment object or investment policy as outlined in the trust agreement, and thus, it is practically significant in relation to whether the truster company complies with the fiduciary duty and its duty to monitor the trustee company.

However, the following circumstances based on the above facts are ① the transaction partner of OTC derivatives to be acquired by the instant OTC derivatives in summary of the instant OTC derivatives investment prospectus. The main text of the instant investment prospectus also refers to the other party’s credit risk with regard to OTC derivatives, while referring to the other party’s credit risk with the instant OTC derivatives, i.e., “A2” as of February 7, 2006 and “A” as of February 6, 2006, i.e., red or f&A” were emphasized. As the Plaintiff’s trading partner of OTC derivatives can be changed to the other party to the instant OTC derivatives, there is no reference in terms of the terms and conditions of the instant trust agreement, i.e., commodity summary, etc. of the other party to the instant OTC derivatives. However, the instant investment proposal merely states that the Plaintiff’s investment prospectus and investment trading partner’s investment risk of OTCTC derivatives should not be considered as having been prepared for investment risk of the other party to the instant OTC derivatives trading company.

B. Determination as to the claim for cancellation of the instant investment trust contract

Articles 62 through 68 of the former Investment Trust Act provide for the redemption of indirect investment securities, and Articles 19, 61, and 133 of the former Investment Trust Act provide that an asset management company, a trustee company, or a distribution company shall be liable to compensate for damages if any damage is incurred to indirect investors by committing an act in violation of the Acts and subordinate statutes, the terms and conditions of the investment trust, or the investment prospectus, or by neglecting its business. Since these provisions have the characteristics of the special provisions on the provisions on the cancellation or termination of the Civil Act, the Plaintiffs cannot cancel the investment trust contract of this case under the provisions on the cancellation or termination of the Civil Act and bear the duty to restore to the other party. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs’ above assertion that was premised on the cancellation of the investment trust contract of this case

C. Determination on the claim for cancellation of the instant investment trust contract

As alleged in the Plaintiffs, insofar as an agreement was concluded between the Plaintiffs and Defendant Korea Asset Management to make a transaction partner of over-the-counter derivatives as an agreement was concluded between the Plaintiff and Defendant Korea Asset Management, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiffs deception or omitted the investment limit against the transaction partner of over-the-counter derivatives. 98.4% of the assets of the instant fund was invested in over-the-counter derivatives. Meanwhile, the investment prospectus of this case states that not less than 70% of the investment target and the investment limit is more than 30% of the over-the-counter derivatives, not more than 30% of the bonds, not more than 30% of the asset-backed securitization securities, not more than 30% of the bills, and not more than 30% of the bills, and most of the investment trust assets in over-the-counter derivatives should be invested in over-the-counter derivatives. As seen above, it does not go against the investment target and investment limit of the instant investment prospectus, and it cannot be said that the Plaintiffs did not know that the investment prospectus of this case was made up the investment prospectus and information.

D. Determination on the nature of tort liability or non-performance of obligation

1) Occurrence of damages liability

Article 19 of the former Telecommunication Act provides, “When an asset management company commits an act in violation of the Acts and subordinate statutes, the terms and conditions of an investment trust, the articles of incorporation of an investment company, or an investment prospectus under Article 56, or causes damage to indirect investors by neglecting its business, the company shall be liable to compensate for such damage.” The Defendant’s assets management company, as an asset management company of the instant fund, bears the duty to promptly make the transaction partner of over-the-counter derivatives to the Plaintiffs as stated in the instant investment prospectus.

However, the fact that Defendant Korea Asset Management changed the transaction partner of over-the-counter derivatives to NNF Asia without obtaining prior consent from the Plaintiffs is recognized as a good manager, and as such, Defendant Korea Asset Management Company breached its duty to manage the investment trust property by making the transaction partner of over-the-counter derivatives an Paris immediately in accordance with the investment prospectus of this case as a good manager, and thus, Defendant Korea Asset Management Company is liable for damages suffered by the Plaintiffs due to such tort or nonperformance.

As to this, Defendant Korea Asset Management decided to trade over-the-counter derivatives within the scope of KRW 20,00,000,000, which is the initial trading partner, for the first transaction partner, and the amount of KRW 28,000,000,000. As a result, Defendant Korea Asset Management demanded to find an appropriate transaction partner in order to realize the return terms and conditions presented in advance to investors since the size of the Fund was about KRW 28,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

However, even if an asset management company has a comprehensive discretion in managing its assets, it does not have any discretion to manage its assets unlike the initial agreement with investors. As such, in the event that the Defendant’s asset management company causes damage to investors by changing the other party to the transaction from Paris to Asia, it shall not fulfill the duty of due care as a good manager for investors. Furthermore, as seen above, Defendant’s assets management company bears the duty of care to make transactions with Defendant U.N. Paris P.F. with a specific party to the transaction pursuant to the agreement with the Plaintiffs, rather than bears the duty of care to make transactions with the other party to the transaction of the OTC derivatives. Furthermore, it cannot be said that there is a difference between the Plaintiff’s credit rating and the other party to the transaction of the OTC derivatives, which would have been established in accordance with the Plaintiff’s credit risk, and it cannot be said that there is no prior agreement between 00,000 won and 00,000 won for the change of its investment trading from the other party to the transaction of the instant OTC derivatives.

2) Scope of liability for damages

Furthermore, with respect to the scope of damages suffered by the Plaintiffs, it was entirely impossible for the Plaintiffs to recover their investments at the time of early redemption or maturity of the instant OTC derivatives, and the terms and conditions of early redemption of the instant fund have not been satisfied as seen above. The damages suffered by the Plaintiffs due to the change of the OTC derivatives trading partner to U.N. Asia by U.S. 2 from the date of redemption of the instant OTC derivatives to U.S. 20. The Plaintiff’s aforementioned OTC derivatives’s investment amount to be recovered at the time of early redemption or maturity of the instant OTC derivatives would be deemed as the investment amount that could have been recovered by the Plaintiff’s early redemption or maturity of the instant OTC derivatives without changing the trading partner of OTC derivatives to U.S. 2’s OTC derivatives, and the base price of the instant fund under the instant investment prospectus and trust terms and conditions as of September 21, 2009 to the extent of early redemption of each of the instant securities investment amount to the extent of 9% of the Plaintiff’s investment amount as of 10 U.

4. Determination as to the claim against Defendant Han Bank

A. Determination on the claim based on the cancellation or cancellation of the instant investment trust contract

The plaintiffs' above assertion is without merit as examined in the judgment on the claims for Defendant Korea Asset Management.

B. Determination on the nature of tort liability or non-performance of obligation

1) Occurrence of damages liability

Article 129(1) of the former Telecommunication Act provides that "the trustee company shall perform its duties in good faith as a good manager for indirect investors in accordance with Acts and subordinate statutes, terms and conditions of trust, and investment prospectus." Article 131(1) of the same Act provides that "a trustee company of an investment trust shall confirm whether management instructions issued by an asset management company violate Acts and subordinate statutes, trust terms and conditions, or investment prospectus under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, and if any violation is confirmed, it shall request the asset management company to withdraw, modify, or correct such management instructions." Article 133 of the same Act provides that "Article 19 of the Act on the Simple Investment in Liability of an asset management company shall apply mutatis mutandis to the liability of the trustee company." Article 133 of the same Act provides that "The defendant Han Bank shall confirm the contents of the investment prospectus of this case mentioned immediately in Paris, and shall bear the obligation to withdraw or modify the management instructions of the OTC derivatives as the investment prospectus of the fund of this case." Thus, it is a manager of the fund of the fund of this case, bears the duty to correct the management instructions issued by Korea.

However, on June 25, 2007, after the plaintiffs received the investment prospectus of this case and joined the fund of this case, the defendant Han Han Bank confirmed the investment prospectus that changed the other party to the transaction to Lnman Asia without any request for correction as stated in the investment prospectus of this case, which was issued to the plaintiffs without the plaintiffs' consent, and purchased OTC derivatives issued by Lnman Asia without requiring the withdrawal, alteration, or correction of the management instruction. As seen above, it is recognized that the defendant Han Bank purchased OTC derivatives issued by Lnman Asia without requiring the management instruction to purchase OTC derivatives issued by Lnman Asia as a good manager. Thus, if the defendant Han Bank confirmed whether the management instruction of an asset management company was in violation of the investment prospectus and confirmed the violation of the investment prospectus, it violates the duty to request the asset management company to withdraw, revise, or correct the relevant management instruction. Thus, it is liable for damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the tort or default of obligation.

As to this, Defendant Han Bank did not include the appointment of a trading partner of OTC derivatives as an inherent business for the management of investment funds of an asset management company. However, if there is any limitation on the inclusion ratio in the trust agreement, only the details of such restriction should be observed. In the case of the Fund, there is no restriction on issuer of OTC derivatives under the trust agreement, and Defendant Han Bank did not violate the fiduciary duty as a trustee company due to the lack of room for involvement in the change in the issuer of OTC derivatives of Defendant Han Asset Management. However, Defendant Han Bank bears the duty of care of a good manager as the trustee company of the Fund of this case to verify whether the management instruction of Defendant Han Han Asset Management was in violation of the Act and subordinate statutes and the trust agreement, and if there is a violation, it bears the duty to demand the withdrawal, alteration, or correction of the relevant management instruction. Thus, the above argument by Defendant

2) Scope of liability for damages

Furthermore, with respect to the scope of damages suffered by the plaintiffs, the amount of compensation for each plaintiff listed in the separate sheet 2, which is an amount obtained by multiplying the investment amount by 810.39/1,000 per unit price of the plaintiff listed in the separate sheet 2, which is an amount obtained by multiplying the investment amount of each plaintiff listed in the separate sheet 2, by the ratio of 810.39/1,000 per unit price per unit price as above (=investment amount by each plaintiff x 0.810399). As such, Defendant Han Bank and each of the plaintiffs in the separate sheet 2, which did not require the withdrawal, alteration, or correction of the management instruction issued by Defendant Hanman Asia with respect to the management instruction of Korea Asset Management without demanding the withdrawal, alteration, or correction of the management instruction, and so that the other party to the OTC OTC derivatives changed to Skman Asia, the amount of compensation for late payment by the plaintiff 2, 2009.

5. Determination as to the claim against Defendant South Korea Bank, Defendant South Korea Investment Securities, and Defendant Eastern Securities

A. Determination on the claim based on the cancellation or cancellation of the instant investment trust contract

The plaintiffs' above assertion is without merit as examined in the judgment on the claims for Defendant Korea Asset Management.

B. Determination on the nature of tort liability or non-performance of obligation

As alleged in the plaintiffs, inasmuch as the agreement was concluded between the plaintiffs and defendant Korea Asset Management Co., Ltd. to make the transaction partner of over-the-counter derivatives as soon as Paris was established, it is nothing more than a violation of the above agreement to change the transaction partner of over-the-counter derivatives. It is not expected that the change of defendant Korea Asset Management Co., Ltd. would sell beneficiary certificates of the fund of this case. It is within the limit of KRW 20,000,000,000 for over-the-counter derivatives transaction with 20,000,000,000 won for the investment of 20,000,000 won, and there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise, it is not sufficient to acknowledge that the defendant Korea Asset Management Co., Ltd. had the plaintiffs be liable for damages of over-the-counter derivatives transaction partner of over-the-counter derivatives, and it is not against the investment prospectus and investment limit of 30% of the investment in over-the-counter derivatives. It is also difficult to inform the plaintiffs that it is against the investment prospectus of this case.

Furthermore, the decision on all matters concerning the management of the investment trust property, such as the acquisition, sale, and exercise of rights of the securities belonging to the investment trust property, is a truster company. Since the selling company, such as Defendant Korea Bank, Defendant Korea Investment Securities, and Defendant Dong Securities, merely carry out the sale of beneficiary certificates under a contract with a truster company, the selling company cannot be held liable for damages related to the management of the investment trust property unless specific intent or negligence is recognized (Supreme Court Decision 2003Da886 Delivered on December 12, 2003), Defendant Korea Bank, Defendant Korea Investment Securities, and Defendant Dong Securities, up to the limit of KRW 20,000,000,000 in OTC derivatives transactions with Non-UNFCCC Paris P&C, so long as it is recognized that there was no intention or negligence between the other party to the OTC derivatives transaction in excess of KRW 20,000,000,000, in accordance with the above agreement, it cannot be recognized that there was an alteration in the agreement between Defendant OTC derivatives and the other party to the transaction.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' assertion on the plaintiffs' banks, defendant us's investment securities, and defendant chine securities is without merit.

6. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims against the defendant Korean Asset Management and the defendant Han Bank within the above recognition scope are accepted respectively for the reasons, and each of the plaintiffs' claims against the defendant Han Bank, the defendant Han Bank, and each of the claims against the defendant Han Bank, the defendant Han Bank, the defendant Han Bank, the defendant Han Bank, and the defendant Han Bank are dismissed as per the disposition.

[Attachment]

Judge ADDDDDIER (Presiding Judge)