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

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”)

A. The asset management company under 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”) is obligated to protect investors by providing accurate information about profit structure and risk factors of investment trust to distributors or investors so that investors can make reasonable investment decisions based on such information and tort liability arising from such violation.

Therefore, in light of the overall circumstances such as the details of the relevant transaction in a real estate investment trust, the characteristics and risk level of an investment trust property, the investor’s investment experience and ability, etc., if an asset management company fails to take any measures, and thereby provides erroneous information that may hinder an investor from forming an accurate awareness of the risks or investment details of the relevant transaction, the relevant investor is liable to compensate for damages suffered by the investor.

(See Supreme Court Decisions 2004Da53197 Decided September 6, 2007; 2010Da76368 Decided July 28, 201, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2010Da76368, Jul. 2

According to the reasoning of the first instance judgment as cited by the lower court, the Defendant is a truster company and asset management company under the former Indirect Investment Act established for the purpose of managing the assets of the indirect investment fund. On November 11, 2005, the Defendant created the “KBY real estate investment trust 7” (hereinafter “the Fund”).