TITLE	Supreme Court Decision 2013Da26425 Decided February 28, 2018 ¡¼Restitution of Deposit Money¡½ [full Text]
Summary
[1] In the event a trust company is deemed to have, in effect, engaged in solicitation, such as recommending a client to conclude a specified money trust agreement after having predetermined the method of managing trust assets, whether the trust company assumes a duty to inform the client as to the specific details of the trust agreement, including the management method of trust assets (affirmative) In such case, the standard for determining to what extent explanation ought to be provided to a client [2] In the event a trust company breached a duty to protect clients and thus induced a client to enter into a trust agreement that the client would not have ordinarily concluded, whether the trust company may be held liable to compensate for damages caused by a tort (affirmative) Whether such case falls under a liability to compensate for damages arising from nonperformance of an obligation (negative in principle) [3] Whether the statutory interest rate for commercial activities is applicable toward an obligation to compensate for damages caused by a tort (negative) [4] Where full reimbursement of the trust fee agreed upon cannot be claimed despite the existence of a trust fee agreement [5] If a trustee breached one¡¯s fiduciary duty pursuant to the trust agreement and incurred expenses, whether the trustee may demand reimbursement for expenses incurred due to one¡¯s own negligence (negative) [6] Standard for determining whether a joinder is typified as either a selective joinder or a preliminary joinder (held: nature of a joinder claim)

Prev	Supreme Court Decision 2015Du2710 Decided February 28, 2018¡¼Revocation of Notice of Income Amount Change¡½
Next	Supreme Court Decision 2017Da275447 Decided February 13, 2018 ¡¼Damages (Etc.)¡½