All
| TITLE | Supreme Court Decision 2017Da282698 Decided September 15, 2021 【Lawsuit Seeking Payment of Promised Returns】 [full Text] |
|---|---|
| Summary | |
| 【Main Issues and Holdings】 [1] Whether Article 144-11(2)2 of the former Indirect Investment Asset Management Business Act and Article 272(6)2 of the former Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act that prohibit unfair solicitation based on the promise of returns are an imperative provision (affirmative) and the effect of the promise of returns (invalid) In a case where a contract concluded through the agency of a managing member of a private equity firm is actually intended for providing the amount determined in the promise of returns, the effect of the foregoing contract (invalid) [2] Actor in charge of the act of unfair solicitation based on the promise of returns or the promise of returns that constitutes a part of such unfair solicitation, which are prohibited in Article 144-11(2)2 of the former Indirect Investment Asset Management Business Act and Article 272(6)2 of the former Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (held: a managing member of a private equity firm) In a case where a third party, such as a limited partner of a private equity firm, provided the promise of returns to an investor based on the consultation with a managing member, and where a managing member used the promise of returns to solicit investment, whether such solicitation of investment is in violation of the above prohibition provision (affirmative) Whether a person who is practically in a similar position as an investor who, under general circumstances, becomes the counterparty to the promise of returns (held: a limited partner of a private equity firm) and as a limited partner of a specific private equity firm can also become the counterparty to the promise of returns (affirmative) | |
