2011 Gohap 13570 Damages, etc.

1. Kim○-○

2. Ma○○;

Plaintiffs’ Address Seoul

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 2 others

Attorney Kim Jong-chul

○ Investment Securities Corporation

Seoul

the representative director ○○

Law Firm LLC (LLC)

1. The term “the term” means “the term;

November 7, 2011

December 9, 2011

1. The Defendant shall pay to Plaintiff Kim ○-○ 120,00,000, and 60,000,000, and 20% interest per annum from August 19, 201 to December 9, 2011, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

2. The plaintiffs' remaining claims are dismissed.

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

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

Defendant: 200, 000, 000, and 100,000, and 000, respectively, to Plaintiff Kim ○○, and to Plaintiff Ansan○, respectively.

shall be calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the day after the copy of the complaint of this case is served to the day of complete payment.

Korea shall pay the same amount of money.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is a company that aims to engage in financial investment business, such as trust business. 2) The Plaintiffs are investors of the Defendant.

B. On October 15, 2010, 100, ○○○○○○ signed a specific money trust agreement on behalf of the Plaintiff Kim○○○, with the recommendation of the head of the Defendant’s branch office ○○○○○○○○, which provides that the amount trusted by the Plaintiff Kim○○ shall be KRW 200,000,000 at par value issued by the Defendant ○○ Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “○○○ Construction”), and the corporate commercial paper on April 15, 201 (hereinafter “corporate commercial paper”) with maturity of KRW 200,00,000, and paid KRW 00 to the Defendant on behalf of the Plaintiff ○○○○○○ on the same day, and KRW 10,00,000 should be paid at face value of KRW 10,00 on behalf of the Plaintiff ○○○ branch office ○○, and KRW 10,000,000 for each of the instant specific money trust contracts with the Defendant ○○○○○.

3) According to each of the instant trust contracts, according to each of the instant trust contracts, the trust period is from the date of each contract to the date of each maturity, the return rate is 8.4% per annum, and the beneficiaries of trust principal and trust interest are the Plaintiffs.

C. On March 21, 201, 201, ○○ Construction applied for the commencement of rehabilitation procedures for ○○ Construction on March 21, 201, Seoul Central District Court 201 Gohap34, and the decision on commencement of rehabilitation procedures was rendered on April 1, 2011. (2) The Defendant notified the Plaintiffs of the intention that it will be postponed until the maturity payment of the principal and interest on the Plaintiffs was approved under the above rehabilitation procedure. Meanwhile, on September 30, 201, the Defendant issued a decision on authorization of the rehabilitation plan for ○○ Construction on September 30, 201, 200, 30% conversion of principal into equity and 30% of cash, and the amount to be paid in cash on April 27, 2011. (3) The Defendant issued a notice to the Plaintiffs on May 27, 2011 that it would be impossible for the Plaintiffs to receive each of the instant corporate bills from ○ Construction upon the commencement of rehabilitation procedure.

【Uncontentious facts, Gap evidence 1, 2-1, and 2-2, witness ○○, and testimony of party ○○, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

The plaintiffs choose the following arguments:

1) In recommending to make an investment to ○○, a representative of the Plaintiffs, the Defendant violated Article 46 of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (hereinafter “Capital Markets Act”) by soliciting the Plaintiffs to make an investment in purchasing commercial papers highly dangerous to the Plaintiffs’ investment objectives, and thus, is liable to compensate for damages pursuant to Article 64 of the said Act. 2) The Defendant violated Article 47 of the said Act by providing a distorted explanation on the possibility of supporting ○○○○○○ Group in making an investment recommendation to ○○, a representative of the Plaintiffs, thereby making the Defendant liable to compensate for damages pursuant to Article 48 of the said Act.

3) The Defendant violated Article 49 of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act by providing a conclusive judgment on uncertain matters such as the possibility of supporting ○○○ Group’s assistance in recommending investment to ○○○○, a representative of the Plaintiffs, or by providing information that may mislead or mislead the Plaintiffs to believe that it is certain, and thus, is liable to compensate for damages under Article 64 of the said Act.

B. Determination

1) The defendant's duty to explain the occurrence of liability for damages

Article 47(1) and (3) 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 terms of the financial investment instrument, risks associated with the investment, and other matters prescribed by Presidential Decree so that the investor can understand such information, and shall not explain any false or distorted (referring to providing a conclusive judgment on an uncertain matter or informing an uncertain matter that is likely to mislead or mislead the investor to believe that it is certain) or omit any material fact in doing so (Article 47(1) and (3) of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act). As such, a financial investment business entity has a duty not to explain to the ordinary investor the reasonable judgment of the investor or the value of the relevant financial investment instrument by distorted any matter that may have a significant impact on the investor's rational judgment or the value of the relevant financial investment instrument

B) Comprehensively taking into account the following facts: (a) ○○○○○○○○○○ Group’s liability for damages caused by breach of its duty of explanation; (b) ○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Group’s 1, 2, and 2 evidence; (c) ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Group’s testimony; (d) the Plaintiffs or regular ○○○ does not meet the requirements as professional investors prescribed in Article 9(5)5 of the Capital Markets Act; and (e) ○○○○○○○○○○ Group’s ○○○○○○ Group’s ○○○○○○ Group’s ○○○○○ Group’s ○○○○○ Group’s ○○○○ Group’s ○○○ Group’s ○○○ Group’s ○○ ○○ 2’s ○○ ○○ ○ ○○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 2’s.

(2) In full view of the facts and the facts found above, it shall be admitted as a whole by considering the overall purport of the pleadings.

According to the following circumstances: ① (a) although ○○○○○○○○○○○○ Group’s credit rating agency recognizes negative factors, such as the business structure of ○○○○○○ Construction and the increase of liabilities, it determined that ○○○○○○○○ Group’s affiliates were able to support ○○○○ Group’s affiliate companies by intensively stating the contents of ○○○○○○ Group’s affiliate companies; (b) however, the possibility of supporting ○○○○○○○ Group’s construction was merely merely the possibility of taking into account the affiliate’s interests; (c) it was not an objective material to support ○○○○○○○ Construction. In fact, the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s investment trust agreement that did not provide any support for ○○○○○○○○○○ construction, supra.

In light of the fact that there is no circumstance to deem the Plaintiffs to have given such delegation to the Defendant, the amount of damages of Plaintiff Kim ○○ due to the Defendant’s breach of duty to explain is estimated to be KRW 200,000,000, and the amount of damages of Plaintiff Ansan○○, respectively, to be KRW 100,000, and KRW 00, and there is no other evidence to reverse it).

However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged as a whole by comprehensively taking into account the purport of the entire pleadings, i.e., ① the plaintiffs should have made an investment after careful consideration by ascertaining in advance the contents of the commercial paper of this case which they intend to make an investment under the principle of self-responsibility, risks resulting from investment, etc. ② The plaintiffs’ representative ○○ has high knowledge of financial investment instruments and experience in investment in the so-called aggressive investment-type product, and thus, it seems that there was a certain degree of risk on the essential risks of the commercial paper. ③ It is difficult for the defendants to demand the ○○○○ Group to provide objective data on the possibility of supporting ○○ Group even in light of the practice of the commercial paper market so far, the defendant’s liability is limited to 60%.

3) Sub-decisions

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff Kim ○○ KRW 120,00,00 ( = 200,000,000 x 60%) KRW 60,000,000 ( = 100,000,000 x 60% x 60%) to the Plaintiff ○○○○, and to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum under the Civil Act from August 19, 2011 to December 9, 2011, on the day following the day on which the copy of the instant complaint was served, as sought by the Plaintiff.

3. Conclusion

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

Judge Choi Jong-soo

Judges Han branch-type

Judges Yoon Young-young

A person shall be appointed.