[1] Whether an agreement guaranteeing an earning rate of an investment trust company is valid (affirmative)

[2] Whether an agreement on guarantee of return on investment by the head of business division of an investment trust company constitutes an act exceeding the scope of power of representation (negative)

[1] Even if the undertaking to guarantee a certain rate of profit and loss is contrary to the essence of beneficiary certificates when an investment trust company sells beneficiary certificates which vests profits and losses from the investment trust company’s management of the investor’s deposit to the customer, the Securities Investment Trust Business Act does not prohibit such undertaking, and it allows the investment trust company to enter into an agreement to preserve the principal or profit to investors with the approval of the Minister of Finance and Economy, and there is a difference between the role of the securities company and the investment trust company under the Securities and Exchange Act in the management of the deposit, and the merchant nature of the investment trust company, such undertaking cannot be deemed null and void.

[2] If the head of business of an investment trust company entered into a profit-guaranteed agreement in selling beneficiary certificates to attract customers, such agreement constitutes an act within the scope of the investment trust company's business, and the head of the business office, as the manager of the company, has a comprehensive authority other than judicial and judicial authority to represent the company in relation to the company's business, such an act within the scope of the authority of the head of the

[1] Articles 4 and 6 (2) of the former Securities Investment Trust Business Act (amended by Act No. 5044 of Dec. 29, 1995) / [2] Article 11 of the Commercial Act, Articles 4 and 6 (2) of the former Securities Investment Trust Business Act (amended by Act No. 5044 of Dec. 29, 1995)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 94Da38199 delivered on August 23, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 2800)

Article 10 of the Civil Act shall apply mutatis mutandis.

Hannam Investment Trust Co., Ltd. (Attorney Kim Jong-cheon, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Gwangju High Court Decision 97Na57 delivered on July 4, 1997

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of 439,209,497 won and the amount of 6% per annum from February 3, 1996 to May 29, 1996, and 25% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

Without dispute over each establishment, Gap evidence 1, 2-1, 2-1, 3, 4-2, 3-2, 8, 9-3 (each return rate), Gap evidence 11-1, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 2-1, 2-2, Eul evidence 3-1 through 4 (each entrustment contract), public document part is not in dispute over each establishment, and public document part is not in relation to Gap evidence 3, 4-1, 5 through 7-2, Gap evidence 8, 9-9 (each payment), Gap evidence 1-2 (each return rate), Gap evidence 1-4 (each return rate), Gap evidence 5-7 (each return rate), Gap evidence 5-1 (each return rate), Gap evidence 1-4 (each return rate of testimony) which is acknowledged by Kim Jong-soo's testimony, and each of the above statements are not different from the purport of the oral argument, Gap evidence 5-1-5 (No return of testimony and evidence 4).

A. The Plaintiff is a school foundation that maintains and manages various levels of schools, such as Joseon University for the purpose of providing higher education and secondary education. The Defendant is a company with the purpose of securities investment trust business, beneficiary certificate savings business, etc.

B. Around 194, the Plaintiff sought interest rate of KRW 2,50,000,000 from an investment trust company and a bank, etc. during the time of deposit of funds to raise a higher profit. Nonparty 2, who had been a manager of the Defendant company, deposited KRW 2,50,00,000 to the Plaintiff to attract high-value investors like the Plaintiff, and purchased KRW 1,50,000,000 for the Defendant’s securities investment trust 3’s 1,50,000,000 for the Defendant’s 12’s 1,50,000,000 for the Defendant’s 10,000,000 for the above 1,60,000,000 for the above 10,000,000,000 won for 10,0000,000 won for each of the above securities until the date when the deposit was returned.

C. Under the terms and conditions of the instant beneficiary certificate, the investment trust company issues beneficiary certificates indicating the right to redeem the original copy of the investment trust and to distribute the beneficiary certificates and sell them to the beneficiary. If the beneficiary purchases and pays the amount of net total assets calculated by dividing the total amount of assets, which is the amount obtained by subtracting the total amount of liabilities from the total amount of assets of the investment trust properties stated in the president of the investment trust account from the date preceding the date of the public announcement, by the total number of units of beneficiary certificates on the day preceding the date of the public announcement, the investment trust company shall manage the investment trust properties formed as above by investing in the stocks, bonds and floating assets, and all profits and losses arising therefrom shall belong to the beneficiary, and if the beneficiary claims redemption of the beneficiary certificates, the investment trust company shall pay to the beneficiary an amount calculated by deducting the redemption fees within the scope of profits by the period of possession of beneficiary certificates, multiplied by the base price of the date of claim for redemption, and the investment trust company shall separately withdraw the expenses and remuneration for the operation and management of the investment trust properties.

D. After December 22, 1995, January 6, 1996, and February 6, 1996, the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to pay the principal and interest of the above agreement on the ground that the maturity of each of the above deposits has arrived three times on the basis that the contract was reached. However, on February 2, 1996, the Defendant paid KRW 949,776,423 to the Plaintiff for KRW 1,50,000 by applying the base price of the beneficiary certificate of this case, unlike the above undertaking. The Defendant paid KRW 1,594,65,175,175 to the Plaintiff on February 2, 1996.

2. Determination on the assertion by the plaintiff and the defendant

Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant seeks payment of the remaining money after deducting the amount already received from the total sum of the proceeds under the foregoing Depository and the revenue guarantee agreement under the said undertaking (hereinafter “the instant revenue guarantee agreement”).

A. On this issue, the defendant asserts that the beneficiary right indicated as the beneficiary certificates of this case under the Securities Investment Trust Business Act is divided into a certain number of units of trust money of the beneficiary, and all of its profits and losses shall revert to the beneficiary and the beneficiary shall have equal rights with respect to redemption of the trust principal and distribution of the profit according to the number of shares of the trust company. However, in a case where the investment trust company has reduced the principal or is unable to obtain the minimum amount of profit, matters concerning the burden of the investment trust company may be stipulated with prior approval of the Minister of Finance and Economy. However, even in this case, the above matters cannot be applied only to a specific beneficiary, and shall be applied equally to all beneficiaries, and even if they should be written in advance, the profit guarantee agreement of this case guaranteeing a certain return of profit regardless of the profits and losses arising from the management of the trust money is contrary to the nature of the beneficiary right, and it is invalid in violation of the Securities Investment Trust Business Act as it did not have the entries in the beneficiary

그러므로 살피건대, 이 사건 수익보장약정 당시 시행 중이던 증권투자신탁업법(1995. 12. 29. 법률 제5044호로 전문 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 이 법이라 한다)은 "증권투자신탁"(이하 "투자신탁"이라 한다)이라 함은 위탁자의 지시에 따라 수탁자가 투자신탁의 신탁재산(이하 "신탁재산"이라 한다)을 특정 유가증권에 대하여 투자하고 운용하며 그 수익권을 분할하여 불특정다수인에게 취득시킴을 목적으로 하는 것을 말하고(제2조 제1항), "위탁회사"라 함은 투자신탁의 위탁자가 됨을 업으로 하는 자를 말하며(제2조 제3항), "수탁회사"라 함은 신탁업법에 의한 신탁회사 또는 신탁업을 겸영하는 금융기관으로서 투자신탁의 수탁자가 됨을 업으로 하는 자를 말하고(제2조 제4항), "수익자"라 함은 투자신탁의 수익증권의 소지인을 말하며(제2조 제5항), 투자신탁의 수익권은 균등하게 분할하며 그 분할된 수익권은 수익증권으로 표시하여야 하고(제4조 제1항), 투자신탁의 수익자는 신탁원본의 상환 및 이익의 분배에 관하여 수익권의 좌수에 따라 균등한 권리를 가지며(제4조 제4항), 수익증권을 발행할 때에는 미리 재무부장관의 인가를 받아야 하며(제4조 제2항), 그 수익증권의 기재사항의 하나로서, 제6조 제2항의 규정에 의한 원본보전 또는 이익보족의 계약을 한 때에는 그 내용을 기재하여야 하고(제4조 제10항 제9호 참조. 현행 증권투자신탁업법 제6조 제10항 제10호는, '…원본보전이나 이익의 부족분을 위탁회사가 부담하기로 하는 때에는 그 내용'을 기재하도록 규정하고 있다.), 수익증권에는 그 기준가격의 계산방법을 기재하고(제4조 제10항 제10호), 위탁회사는 재무부장관의 승인을 얻어 원본의 손실을 초래할 경우 또는 미리 정한 최소한의 이익을 얻지 못할 경우에 그 보전 또는 보족에 관한 사항을 정하는 수익증권을 발행할 수 있다고 규정하고(제6조 제2항), 위탁회사가 신탁계약을 체결하고자 할 때에는 증권투자신탁약관에 의하여야 하는데(제14조 제1항), 그 신탁약관을 제정하고자 할 때에는 미리 재무부장관의 승인을 얻어야 하며(제15조 제1항 본문), 또 그 신탁약관에는 수익증권에 관한 사항, 이익분배 및 환매에 관한 사항, 수익증권기준가격의 계산방법 등을 정하여야 하고(제14조 제2항 제4호, 제6호, 제11호 등 참조), 위탁회사는 수익증권의 기준가격을 매일 공고·게시하도록 규정(제24조 제1항)하고 있으나, 한편 이 법은 위탁회사의 업무를 경영하고자 하는 자는 자본이 금 30,000,000,000원 이상이고 그 인적 구성과 유가증권에의 투자경험 및 능력과 증권시장의 상황 등에 비추어 투자신탁의 위탁자로서 적격성을 가지고 있으며 업무의 수지전망이 양호한 주식회사로서 재무부장관의 허가를 받아야 하고(제12, 13조), 위탁회사는 수탁회사에 대하여 유가증권의 취득·매각 등에 관하여 필요한 모든 지시를 하여야 하며 수탁회사는 위탁회사의 그 지시에 따라야 하고(제20조), 수익증권에는 위탁회사 및 수탁회사가 받는 신탁보수와 기타 수수료의 계산방법, 지급방법 및 시기 등을 정하도록(제4조 제10항 제5호) 규정하고 있는바, 위와 같은 제반 규정들을 종합하여 보면 증권투자신탁이 증권투자에 관한 충분한 지식이나 경험이 없는 불특정다수의 일반투자자로 하여금 증권투자를 용이하게 할 수 있도록 하기 위하여 그들의 참여로 조성한 자금을 피고 회사와 같은 위탁회사가 대행하여 특정의 유가증권에 투자·운용하여 일반투자자에게는 그 투자에 비례하여 균등하게 그 투자·운용의 결과로서의 손해 및 이익을 귀속시키는 제도이긴 하지만, 위탁회사는 보수를 받고 일반투자자를 대신하여 일반투자자들이 예탁한 자금을 전문적으로 특정유가증권에 투자하고 운용하여 그 결과를 일반투자자에게 귀속시키는 것을 영업으로 하는 상인이라 할 것이고, 따라서 위탁회사로서는 다액의 자금을 유치하여 이를 운용함으로써 보다 많은 이익을 남길수록 그 보수도 많아지는 까닭에 다액의 자금을 유치하기 위하여 거액투자자에게 보다 나은 조건을 제시할 수도 있고 그러한 행위는 상인인 위탁회사의 일반적인 상거래 행위의 범위 내에 포함된다 할 것이고, 또한 수익권이 투자신탁회사의 신탁금의 운용결과에 따라 그 수익 및 손실이 수익자에게 귀속되는 것을 그 내용으로 하지만 이 법은 투자자의 이익을 보호하고 위탁회사로의 투자를 촉진하기 위하여 위탁회사가 신탁금을 잘못 운용하여 원본의 감소를 초래하거나 수익자에게 최소한의 이익도 보장하여 주지 못할 경우를 대비하여 위탁회사의 부담으로 원본보전이나 이익부족분을 보족할 수 있도록 하여 위와 같은 수익권의 내용의 예외를 허용하고 있고, 그와 같은 예외를 허용함에 있어 재무부장관의 승인을 얻고 수익증권에 기재하도록 하고는 있으나 재무부장관의 승인은 원보보전이나 이익부족분의 보족에 있어 위탁회사의 부담이 과도하여 위탁회사의 재정이 부실하게 되지 아니하도록 통제하기 위한 것이며 수익증권에의 기재는 투자자에게 유리한 위와 같은 예외를 일반에게 공개하여 일반투자자의 투자를 유치하기 위한 것이라 할 것이고, 더욱이 이 법은 이 사건 수익보장약정과 같이 수익증권의 기재내용으로 되지 아니한 채 수익증권의 발행과는 별도로 증권투자신탁의 위탁회사와 수익자 사이에 이루어지는 원본보전이나 이익보족 내지 보장에 관한 계약 자체의 허용 여부나 그 유효성에 대해서는 아무런 규정을 두고 있지 아니한 점 등을 아울러 고려할 때 이 사건 수익보장약정이 수익권의 본질에 어긋나고 증권투자신탁업법에 위반되어 무효라고 할 수는 없다 할 것이므로 피고의 위 주장은 이유 없다.

B. In addition, the defendant also prohibits an unfair solicitation by an officer or employee of a securities company in return for promising the customer to bear all or part of the loss incurred from the transaction (Article 52 of the Securities and Exchange Act). Thus, the Securities Investment Trust Business Act (wholly amended by Act No. 5044 of Dec. 29, 1995) which has agreed to guarantee the customer's profit is null and void since it violates the above mandatory law, and the revised Securities Investment Trust Business Act (wholly amended by Act No. 5044 of Dec. 29, 1995) provides that the Minister of Finance and Economy may order the truster company to correct it or take other necessary measures to protect public interest, such as the "act of trading under unfair conditions different from the ordinary trading terms and conditions" (Article 32 of the amended Act). Thus, the acts impeding the fair solicitation of the above securities, etc. include the acts such as unfair solicitation under the Securities and Exchange Act, and so long as the above unfair solicitation prohibition regulations are mandatory regulations, the regulation regulating the fair solicitation of the above securities should also be justified.

Therefore, the purpose of the Securities and Exchange Act is to contribute to the development of the national economy by facilitating issuance, sale, purchase and sale of securities and other transactions and by protecting investors (Article 1). The securities company is a person who conducts securities business, such as brokerage, intermediary or agent for entrustment of sale and purchase transactions on the securities market (Article 2(8) and (9)) without delay, when the sale and purchase or other transactions are made based on the customer’s order, shall prepare a report on the relevant transactions and deliver it to the customer (Article 46). If the securities company is entrusted with the sale and purchase transaction of securities by customers, the company’s decision can be made only on the quantity and price of the securities and the timing of sale and purchase transaction (Article 107). Since the Securities and Exchange Act regulates transactions on the securities market, the provisions of the Securities Investment Trust Business Act’s current Securities and Exchange Act’s current securities investment trust business’s current securities investment trust business regulations are not applicable to the trust company’s investment trust company’s investment risk and investment risk, it can be seen that it violates the Securities and Exchange Act’s current securities investment trust Business Act’s regulations.

C. Next, Article 9 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes provides that the defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than five years or by a fine not exceeding 50,000 won, regardless of the pretext of the interest, clothes, insurance money, dividends, or remuneration provided by the Acts and subordinate statutes or other financial institutions corresponding thereto with respect to the savings in question from the officers and employees of the financial institution (Paragraph 1). Meanwhile, the "financial institution" provided by the above Act includes the defendant in accordance with subparagraph 1 (k) of Article 2 of the above Act, and the "deposit" provided by Article 9 of the above Act includes the purchase of beneficiary certificates pursuant to subparagraph 2 (b) of Article 2 of the above Act. Thus, the "deposit" provided by Article 2 of the above Act includes the purchase of beneficiary certificates pursuant to subparagraph 2 (b) of Article 2 of the beneficiary certificates of this case or the general beneficiary certificates of this case, and thus, the profit guarantee agreement of this case is invalid in violation of good morals and other social order.

Therefore, the plaintiff's purchase of the beneficiary certificates of this case constitutes the savings under Article 9 of the above Act when depositing the above total amount of KRW 2,500,000,000 to the defendant. However, since the fact that the plaintiff purchased the beneficiary certificates of this case and entered into a profit security agreement with the head of the business division of the defendant in purchasing the beneficiary certificates of this case cannot be deemed to have received the money or other benefits in relation to the purchase of the beneficiary certificates of this case, the defendant's assertion that the profit security agreement of this case was in violation of Article 9 of the above Act is without merit.

D. In addition, the defendant asserts that the revenue guarantee agreement of this case violates Article 23 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act prohibiting unfair trade practices. However, Article 23 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act provides that an enterpriser shall not engage in any act that is likely to impede fair trade, such as unfairly refusing a trade, or discriminating against a certain transacting partner. Thus, the revenue guarantee agreement of this case cannot be deemed as an act that is likely to disrupt fair trade as above, and therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

E. The defendant asserts that this case's revenue guarantee agreement is not legally effective because it is just because it is not reasonable to expect a return on profit, and it is just to make a return on profit close to the above agreement by making the best operation of trust money in light of the nature of a securities investment trust of "shared shares with risk" that it is difficult to expect a return on profit, and it is also unreasonable to make a return on profit close to the above agreement. However, the defendant's above assertion is without merit, since there is no evidence to acknowledge the defendant'

F. The defendant asserts that the agreement of this case's revenue guarantee, even though the agreement of this case's revenue guarantee does not become null and void, is more than the scope of the defendant's right of representation of the head of the defendant's business, and that the defendant's business division does not have the right to harm the defendant's business division's profit guarantee agreement of this case. Thus, the defendant's business division did not have the right to harm the defendant's profit guarantee agreement of this case. Thus, the defendant's business division's profit guarantee agreement of this case is an act within the defendant's business scope. Since the defendant's business division is the defendant's manager and has the comprehensive and non-judicial power to represent the defendant in relation to the defendant's business, the act of this case's revenue guarantee agreement is within the scope of the defendant's business division'

G. Furthermore, since the principal and interest of 1,00,00,000 won as to the contract to be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff is the principal and interest of 1,00,000,000,000 won, 1,196,96,000 per annum of 16.3% per annum of 16.3% per annum of 1996,000,000 per annum of 16.46,00,000 (1,00,000,000 x 16.3/100,000 x 16.3/100,000 x 46.7,969,000 won per annum of 16.46,00,000,00 won per annum of 16.36,09,000 won per annum of 949,76,796,46,096,00 won per annum of the above amount for the Plaintiff’s.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount of 439,209,497 won and the amount of damages for delay at the rate of 6% per annum from February 3, 1996 to May 29, 1996, on the record that the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case from February 3, 1996 to May 29, 1996, and 25% per annum from the next day to the full payment date. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking this shall be accepted for the reasons, and the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant who has lost the lawsuit, and it is so decided as per Disposition with a provisional execution declaration attached.

Judges Lee Sang-hoon (Presiding Judge)