(a) Whether a certified public accountant who instructs the settlement of accounts and prepares a false audit report has liability for damages;

(b) Whether the business start-up investment company has invested in the enterprise concerned;

(c) Whether a securities company which is a major social company for the disclosure of the company has a duty to examine whether the company subject to acquisition satisfies the requirements for disclosure of the company, such as analyzing whether its financial statements, etc. are true;

B. The burden of proving that the above 1's "A" or "B" is a claim for damages.

(c) Other party who is liable to compensate for damage by an internal trader in violation of Article 188-2 of the Securities and Exchange Act pursuant to Article 188-3 (1) of the same Act.

A. A certified public accountant who guides the division of accounts of the above insolvent company, prepares a false audit report, and renders shares illegally listed, is liable to compensate for the damages suffered by ordinary investors due to purchase of shares, as a tort under Article 750 of the Civil Act.

B. A business entity established under the Support for Small and Medium Enterprise Establishment Act as the applicable law to invest in a small and medium enterprise and then registered or listed it in the manner of financing, thereby recovering its investments and gaining profits from disposing of its equity shares, and a business entity has a comprehensive authority to conduct management guidance to practically audit as to whether an enterprise subject to investment is a sound company meeting the requirements for corporate disclosure under a joint venture agreement with an enterprise subject to investment, and to meet such requirements, barring special circumstances, even though it is well aware that a start-up business investment company, which has a comprehensive authority to conduct management guidance, has already been under heavy financial pressure and thus is almost impossible for it to conduct its normal business activities within a short period, it is difficult for it to actually audit whether the remaining investment-oriented company, which is urgently required to recover its own equity capital, satisfies the requirements for corporate disclosure, or make every effort to disclose the company without making any effort to make the company open to the public through the support and guidance to the company, such act is an unlawful act against a bona fide investor.

C. In order for a securities company, which is a major society for the disclosure of the company, to have the duty to verify whether the financial statements and audit reports thereon are true, it shall be deemed that at least a major society has the authority to request the company to be disclosed to peruse or submit relevant documents, to investigate its business and assets, or to appoint a separate auditor and to audit the company to be disclosed. Unless there are any grounds for recognizing that the company has such authority, the company as a major society for the disclosure of the company shall be deemed to have the authority to audit the company to be disclosed. As for the financial matters necessary for analyzing whether the company to be disclosed satisfies the requirements for the disclosure of the company, strict qualification and audit standards under the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies are prepared, and the audit reports and audit reports of the external auditor whose authenticity is guaranteed by sanctions against false audits are genuine, and it shall be deemed that the said financial statements and audit reports have the authority to verify whether they are true and not. Furthermore, they shall not be obligated to verify whether they are true.

B. In a lawsuit seeking compensation for damages on the ground that the shares of an insolvent company which cannot be listed on the Stock Exchange as stated in the above 1A and 1 B were illegally listed, due to the characteristics of the stock market, where it is difficult for an insolvent company that did not meet the requirements for corporate disclosure from the beginning to illegally disclose the company as if it were a sound company that met the requirements for corporate disclosure due to its weak financial structure due to the characteristics of the stock market, the market price of the shares falls rapidly and the investors who purchased the relevant shares without knowing the above circumstances inevitably incur losses. In the stock market, there is no room to establish the concept of the counterpart to the transaction because of the abnormal and collective transaction between many and unspecified persons. Considering the characteristics of the price-fixing structure in the stock market, there are many cases where the share price of the company listed on the stock market is affected by factors other than the matters concerning the relevant company itself, and if it is extremely difficult for the victim to prove that there is a substantial causal relation between the harmful act and the unlawful purchase of shares, and thus, it is extremely impossible for the victim to bear the burden of proof.

C. Article 188-3 (1) of the Securities and Exchange Act provides that a person who has conducted an insider trading in violation of Article 188-2 of the same Act shall be liable for damages arising from the sale and purchase or other transaction of the securities in question by the person who has conducted the sale and purchase or other transaction of the securities in question. In this case, the term "person who has conducted the sale and purchase or other transaction of the securities in question" shall be interpreted to mean a person who has traded the securities in the same category as the one which

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims against the defendant Shin Jong-dong Branch, defendant Ukjin, defendant Yoon Young-jin, defendant Cho Young-gu Ltd., defendant Jeonbuk-gu Bank, defendant Jeonbuk-gu, and the claims against the defendant Han-dong Bank are dismissed, respectively.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the portion arising between the Plaintiff, Defendant Shin Jong-dong Co., Ltd., Defendant Shin Jong-jin, Defendant Yu Young-jin, Defendant Ho-ho, Defendant Cho Young-chul, Defendant Jeonbuk Bank, and Defendant Jeonbuk-han Bank, shall be five minutes. The remainder shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder shall be borne by the said Defendants, respectively. The portion arising between the Plaintiff, Defendant Han-ho and Defendant

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The following facts are without dispute between the parties, or evidence Nos. 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13 through 37 of the evidence Nos. 1, 4 through 6, 8, 9, 11 through 23 of the evidence No. 2-1, 27 through 37, 41 through 50, 53, 4 and 5 of the evidence No. 6-1, 2, 7 through 10 of the evidence No. 11-1, 12-1, 12-1, 2 through 5 of the evidence No. 12-1, 6, 2 through 5 of the evidence No. 6-1, 7-1 through 6 of the evidence Nos. 1, 8-1 through 25 of the evidence Nos. 3, 9-1 through 14 of the Korea Stock Exchange, 15-1 through 5 of the evidence No. 1, 6-1 to 7 of the evidence No.

A. (1) On February 1, 1984, U.S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S.S.

(2) Defendant Shin Jong-dong had a 1 factory at the location of the above head office, and around December 10, 198, the second factory was established in Young-si, Jeonju-si, the third factory was established in the bridge Dong-dong, and around December 1, 1991, the first and the second factory was produced in white-si, and the third factory was produced in ice, and the third factory was established in the 5th floor in Jongno-gu, Seoul, Jongno-gu, Seoul, and approximately 300 employees of the officers and the above factory were working.

(3) At the time of incorporation, Defendant New Settlement Co., Ltd. was 180,000 won in capital, but thereafter, 150,000,000 won in capital, and 150,000 won in July 29, 1986; 150,000 won in capital; 150,000,000 won in capital on February 11, 1987; 370,000,000 won in capital on December 18, 198; 40,000,000,000 won in capital on December 27, 198; 190,000 won in guaranteed bonds; 1,40,000 won in capital on December 29, 198; 200,000 won in guaranteed bonds; and 3,000,000 won in capital on condition of guaranteed bonds, respectively; and

(4) Defendant New Fulp Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant New Fulp Co., Ltd.”) committed 4.2 billion won including KRW 4 billion in 1985, KRW 3.0 billion in the year of incorporation, KRW 4.2 billion in the year of 1986, KRW 8 billion in the year of 1987, KRW 4.0 billion in the year of 1988, KRW 4 billion in the year of 1989, KRW 4 billion in the year of 1990, KRW 6 billion, KRW 5 billion in the year of 1991, and KRW 3.4 billion in the accumulated amount in February 192, which continued to take over the above fulp Co., Ltd.’s capital, and continued to take over the above fulp Co., Ltd.’s capital in an excessive state of lack of working capital, and continued to take over the fulp Co., Ltd.’s capital in the year of 1992.

(5) Notwithstanding the fact that since the establishment of the new shares, as seen above, the enemy did not meet the requirements for corporate disclosure as seen earlier, the defendant Hongjin, the representative director of the company, was no longer capable of financing more funds. As such, if the company is disclosed, it is not only easy to raise funds through methods such as new shares offering and new shares offering but also to provide various benefits such as benefits under various tax laws such as the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act and the Corporate Tax Act, and financial support, but also to list the shares of the new shares to the Korea Stock Exchange to raise its operating fund and to review them for listing from the beginning of February 1989.

(6) When acquiring the Yansan District Co., Ltd. in 1986, the Defendant Spanjin became aware of the Defendant’s debt, a certified public accountant belonging to the Yandong Accounting Corporation, who was in charge of external audit of the said company, at the time of the said company, and was under audit by entering into a contract on the external audit of the Defendant’s New Accounting Corporation and undergoing audit thereon on March 1, 1987. On April 1, 1989, the Defendant Spanjin entered into a new contract with the said accounting corporation and received external audit on whether the Defendant’s New Accounting Corporation was the person responsible for the Defendant’s debt.

(7) On March 191, 191, Defendant Hongjin prepared financial statements for 1. 3 billion won to 1. 8 billion won for the same fiscal year, 1. 3 billion won for each of the above 1. 4 billion won for 1991, 20 billion won for each of the above 1. 3 billion won for the settlement of accounts, 3 billion won for 1. 4 billion won for each of the above 1. 8 billion won for the 1. 9 billion won for each of the above 1. 4 billion won for the settlement of accounts, 1. 4 billion won for the above 1. 9 billion won for each of the above 1. 9 billion won for the settlement of accounts, 1. 5 billion won for each of the above 9 billion won for the settlement of accounts, 1. 5 billion won for each of the above 9 billion won for the settlement of accounts, 1. 5 billion won for the settlement of accounts for the 194 billion won or more for each of the above 19000 billion won for the settlement of accounts.

B. From Apr. 20, 1988, the auditor’s opinion on the financial statements of Defendant 1 was prepared with respect to the new financial statements of Defendant 1; the auditor’s opinion on the settlement of accounts was prepared; the auditor’s opinion on the settlement of accounts was prepared with respect to the same financial statements of Defendant 1; the auditor’s opinion on the settlement of accounts was prepared with respect to the same financial statements of Defendant 1; the auditor’s opinion on the settlement of accounts was prepared with respect to the same financial statements of Defendant 2; the auditor’s opinion on the settlement of accounts was prepared with respect to the settlement of accounts; the auditor’s opinion on the settlement of accounts was prepared with respect to the same financial statements of Defendant 1; and the auditor’s opinion on the settlement of accounts was prepared with a false statement on the settlement of accounts; and the auditor’s opinion on the settlement of accounts was prepared with respect to the same amount of net income on the settlement of accounts; and the auditor’s opinion on the settlement of accounts was prepared with respect to the new statement on the settlement of accounts of accounts of Defendant 1.

C. (1) In promoting the company disclosure of Defendant Shin Jong-jin, the first time, the issue was discussed with Kim Jong-soo, the director of the public offering of acquisition of the non-party securities company instead of the non-party securities company, and the said company, as seen earlier, was in a special relationship that invested in the defendant Shin Jong-dong, the affiliate company, and thus, was prevented from directly participating in the listing process, the above Kim Jong-jin requested the Korea Securities & Exchange (hereinafter referred to as the "Defendant's securities") to assign the registration of the non-party new stocks and the company disclosure on November 1, 1990. Accordingly, the defendant Kim Jong-jin concluded a contract on the total acquisition and solicitation of shares as a main social company between Defendant Shin Jong-dong and the company disclosure of the new stocks company.

(2) The requirements and procedures for the disclosure of enterprises are as follows:

(1) The Securities and Exchange Act and the Securities and Exchange Act (Article 6 of the Regulations on the Business of the Securities and Exchange) shall apply to a company which is requested by the Securities Company (the Company subject to disclosure) to acquire securities through a written request for underwriting of securities from among the corporations designated as the Company as the Manager (the Company).

(2) As above, the company of major company which received a written request for acquisition of shares from the company causing the same as above shall first pass five years after its incorporation in the case of the company subject to acquisition of shares under Article 14 of the above provision, i.e., the requirements for the stock subject to acquisition, i.e., the company's incorporation, and 3 billion won or more in the case of the company being open to the public, and 5 billion won or more in its own capital. The sales amount shall be at least average of 15 billion won in the last three business years, and 20 billion won or more in the last three business years. The rate of profit from the last three business years shall be at least 150% in the interest rate of the deposit with the maturity of one year in commercial banks as of the end of the pertinent business year, and the ratio of the paid-in capital in the last two business years shall be at least the highest interest rate as of the

(2) A company that examines whether the above requirements for disclosure of a company are met shall report to the Securities Supervisory Board a written request for acquisition of stocks submitted by the said issuing company to the Securities Supervisory Board and conduct a basic analysis of securities, and submit a weekly plan to the Securities Supervisory Board in a certain form (Article 6-2 of the aforementioned Regulations).

The Securities and Exchange Commission shall prepare an audit report, etc. under the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies and submit it to the Securities and Exchange. In other words, the Securities and Exchange Commission shall conduct supervision, etc. of audit reports necessary for the fair performance of the audit. In the event that an audit report of a company scheduled to be disclosed is subject to occasional supervision, the Securities and Exchange Commission may have employees under its control peruse the accounting books and documents of the company or investigate the affairs and the financial status of the company. After the completion of an investigation into the above company, the head of the supervising department shall report the results to the Chairperson of the Securities and Exchange Commission (Articles 15 and 15-2 of the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies, Articles 3, 10, and 12 of the Regulations on External Audit of Stock Companies, and Articles 3, 10,000,00 won or more of the Securities and Exchange Regulations, the issuer shall submit a securities registration statement to the Securities and Exchange Commission for the inspection of the company's total amount (Article 8 of the Securities and Exchange Act), the Securities and Exchange Commission shall prepare a prospectus at a place prescribed by the Securities and Exchange Commission for public inspection.

A) The financial standing of a weekly company shall be based on the financial statements revised by an auditor. However, in the case of acquiring shares for the purpose of the disclosure of a company, the financial standing of the company shall be based on the auditor's audit report on the financial statements for the latest two business years and shall reflect the results of supervision (Article 9(3) of the Securities and Exchange Act, Article 2 of the Securities and Exchange Standards Act), the analysis of securities shall be based on the nature value of ordinary shares (referring to profit value and value of assets) and the issuer's credit standing, the ability to pay dividends and the issuer's credit standing (Article 10 and Article 3 of the above Rules). In the analysis of the above securities, the weekly company shall, in principle, examine the financial standing of the company (Article 10 and Article 3 of the above Rules), the company's articles of incorporation, the plan for use of the company register, the auditor's audit report, the financial statements for the latest two business years and the estimated financial statements between the two years and the financial statements (Article 4 of the above Standards).

(2) If the company’s principal company submits a written request for stock acquisition, a written report on securities and a written report on securities analysis to the Securities Management Commission and becomes effective with the approval of the commission, then the company’s corporate disclosure procedure is completed by being listed on the Stock Exchange and trading with shares allocated upon receiving subscription for new stocks from ordinary investors.

(3) Around the end of November 190, Defendant New Securities Association (hereinafter “Korea Securities Association”) has completed its registration as a registered company other than Korea Securities Association; it has received a written request for acquisition of shares from Defendant New Securities Depository as of the end of December of the same year; it has reported it to the Korea Securities Supervisory Board; it has prepared a weekly subscription plan from April 1, 1991 to the 5th day of the same year; it has been submitted to the Korea Securities Exchange (hereinafter “Korea Stock Exchange”) to obtain data necessary for the preparation of the company subscription plan and the analysis of securities; and it has been submitted to the Korea Securities Exchange (hereinafter “Korea Stock Exchange”) to the Korea Securities Depository for 0th day of 6th day of the same year; and it has been submitted to the Korea Securities Depository for 10th day of the same year after it had been submitted to the Korea Securities Depository for 10th day of the same year; and it has been submitted to the Korea Securities Depository for 19th day of the same year to the Korea Securities Depository for 20th day of the same year.

(4) The case holding that on July 191, 191, the non-party 1,00, a public offering director of the defendant's new stocks, issued cash 1,00,000 won to the non-party 1,00 won under the name of the non-party 1,00, which is the fund owner of the defendant's new stocks, and that on November 1, 1991, the non-party 2, a public offering director of the defendant's new stocks, received cash 1,00,000 won from the non-party 1,00,000 won, which was provided with personnel's personnel, and the non-party 2, the non-party 1,00,000 won, which was paid to the non-party 2, the non-party 1,600,000 won, which was the first public offering director of the defendant's new stocks and the non-party 2, the vice-party 1,000,000 won.

D. (1) Under the Support for Small and Medium Enterprise Establishment Act, the non-party 1, whose representative director is the non-party 30,000 shares of the Defendant Shin Jong-ho was paid 8,500 shares per share to the non-party 30,000 shares of the Defendant Shin Jong-ho who was registered in the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy pursuant to the non-party 12,00,000 won in the capital increase in December of the same year, and was owned in the name of the non-party 12,40,000 shares by investing 112,00,000 won in the name of the non-party 22,40 shares in the capital increase.

(2) On January 20, 1992, prior to the listing of the shares of the Defendant New Settlement Co., Ltd., around December 20, 1992, Defendant Han-jin discussed the issue of the beginning price decision of the shares to be listed on the 23th day of the same month by gathering together with the Defendant Hongjin and Nonparty Kim Jong-soo at the Seoul Investment Office of the said Masung Business Start-up Investment Co., Ltd., and the acquisition price of the above shares is KRW 6,000 per share, and the profit value of the above shares by the analysis of the Defendant’s securities against the acquiring company is KRW 8,047 per share, barring any special circumstance, the general investors offered an order to purchase the shares within the scope of the above profit value, and there was a conspiracy to arrange to set the beginning price to be higher than the above anticipated price per share in order to recognize the shares of the Defendant New Settlement as promising issues for the shares of the Defendant New Settlement as promising issues.

(3) In the case of a new open company, unlike a corporation listed on the date of listing, the new open company shall adopt a method by which the purchase price and the quantity of the purchase order are calculated in the order of higher purchase price by first receiving only the purchase order, and then adding up the order quantity in the order of higher purchase price and the quantity of the purchase order in the order of higher purchase price.

(4) On January 20 of the same year, Defendant Han-ho and Dong-jin decided to manipulate the beginning price by using the above method to pay high price on the date of listing. On January 20 of the same year, 3 of each of the two accounts under the name of 5 o’s new o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’.

(5) Unlike the expected amount, as seen above, when the beginning price was determined at KRW 14,500 per share (6,000 per share) more than twice more than that of the subscription price, shareholders who initially acquired new shares continued to place an order for sale, and the price of the shares in the Defendant new shares continues to drop from it (at the end of January of the same year, the price of the shares in the Defendant new shares became KRW 10,90 per share (at the end of April of the same year, the price of the shares above was raised temporarily due to the characteristics of the stock market, but as a whole, the price of the shares did not decline as a whole) and thereafter fell at KRW 6,050 per share on April 20 of the same year.

(6) As above, in the process of continuous decline after the stock price of Defendant Shin Jong-gu’s new land was listed, Defendant Han-gu sold 7,630 shares of 50,000 shares, which were owned by the Non-party friendly business start-up investment, the representative director of which was the representative director, at KRW 12,500 per share.

E. If the stock price of the company subject to disclosure in accordance with the Securities and Exchange Act and the Securities Subscription Business Regulations has fallen below the market price within three months after the listing, the company is obligated to purchase the shares at the market price. The defendant's securities were the company's stock listing company's stock price for three months from January 23, 192 to April 22 of the same year, which was listed as the date of listing. As such, the period of market creation was the company's duty to make the shares for three months from April 19 of the same year, but the above price was reduced to 6,000 won, and the articles that the company's shares at the new stock price was reduced to 6,000 won, were likely to decline continuously due to the increase in the price of the shares at the newspaper on April 20 of the same year, the total amount of shares at the defendant's new stock price was 284,720 shares from April 20 of the same year, 201, 300, 13008 won.

F. (1) The Defendant Alternative Development Bank is a start-up business investment company established on November 27, 1986 with the law applicable to the Support for Small and Medium Enterprise Establishment Act as the law applicable to the Small and Medium Enterprise Establishment Act, and 5,000,000,000,000 capital stock as well as the re-issuance of issued bonds, and 3,000,000,000,000,000,000 as the above Defendant’s general partner, with the above Defendant’s capital stock as 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, which is composed of the above Defendant’s general partner and the Nonparty’s general investors, and it is also recognized that the above Defendant’s general partner is 5,00,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,00 capital or more.

(2) On December 28, 1989, the Defendant, who was managing and operating as a general partner, concluded a joint investment agreement with the Defendant to invest 280,000,000 won in the name of the investment association instead of managing and operating the said loan amounting to KRW 1,00,000 in the name of the development financing company on March 23, 1990, and KRW 300,000,000 in the name of the said investment association instead of the said investment association, in the name of the said investment association on behalf of the Defendant, and instead of the Nonparty, in the name of the development financing and the investment association on behalf of the Defendant on December 17, 1989, the following agreements were concluded.

(2) Defendant New Settlement System must report the production, sales status, progress of factory construction, progress of business plan, financial statements, business plan, annual reports, changes in matters entered in the register, list of shareholders, etc. in the form of monthly, quarterly, semi-annual, annual and occasional reports.

) If necessary, the said joint venture investor may audit the accounts and affairs of the Defendant’s new administration as a shareholder qualification, and may require rectification of any matter requiring rectification as a result of the audit, and the Defendant’s new administration must correct it and report its result.

(3) If the Defendant’s New Settlement System (hereinafter “New Settlement System”) promotes the disclosure of the company within the prompt period of time and satisfies the requirements for disclosure, it must disclose the company within one year from the date of settlement of accounts.

(3) Defendant New Settlement Co., Ltd. must conclude annual audit contracts with an accounting firm designated by the Joint Venture Investors in the presence of the Joint Venture Investors.

(1) If one of the parties to the above contract fails to perform the contractual obligations, the other party may terminate the above contract upon the lapse of the grace period between 30 days, and any person who fails to perform the contractual obligations shall compensate for any damages arising therefrom.

(3) As a result of an investment under the above joint venture agreement, the Development Finance and the Non-Party Investment Association owned 512,000 shares out of the total outstanding shares 1,280,000 shares prior to the listing of the Defendant New Settlement Bank. On March 27, 1991, the Development Finance and the Non-Party Investment Association sold 30,000 shares out of the 30,000 shares to the Non-Party Sejong Pulri Co., Ltd. and held the total shares of 482,00 shares.

(4) Notwithstanding the agreement under the joint venture agreement as above, Nonparty 2, the representative director of the development finance by proxy, Nonparty 2, the director of the division in charge of Nonparty 2, had Nonparty 1 seek the status of the supply of funds and the amount of exchange funds and measures to pay bills, etc. on the phone of each month, and did not require the report of the above agreement as to the status of the Defendant’s new political situation. In addition to receiving the report, the external auditor did not actively demand the report of the above agreement. Nonparty 2, the representative director of the development finance by proxy and Nonparty 2, the external auditor of Nonparty 2, the external auditor of the investment association, at the time of the Defendant’s new political situation,

(5) On December 30, 1989, 1989, the development financing for Defendant Hongjin loaned approximately KRW 1,000,000,000 on the condition of redemption after one year since January 30, 1990, at the interest rate of approximately 2,00,000,000, which is the discount of the bill of exchange due to the shortage of working capital in the Defendant Shin Jong-jin's capital. On February 1990, the development financing for Defendant Hongjin loaned KRW 400,000 on the condition that it would be repaid after 13.5% of the annual interest rate of January 30, 1990, and it did not vary to the extent that it would not receive more than 5,00,000,000,000 capital financing for Defendant Hong-jin Co., Ltd.'s acquisition or continued participation in the capital by requesting the acquisition of new financing for the acquisition of new financing for the acquisition of new financing for Defendant Hongjin, which did not change to the extent of new financing.

(6) Around the end of 190, when Defendant New Settlement Bank requested a grace period of KRW 1,00,000 of the above loans for reasons of the shortage of operating funds, Defendant New Settlement Bank requested a grace period of KRW 1,00,000,000, the repayment date was extended by one year, and even before that period, Defendant New Settlement Bank was listed. However, Defendant New Settlement Bank failed to pay monthly interest for the above loans due to continuous financial pressure (the Defendant New Settlement Bank did not pay monthly interest for the above loans over 22 months after the above loan date until the repayment date) and 190. The net profit accrued from the settlement of accounts for the business year on 190 (the above net profit was the result of the settlement of accounts in installments as seen earlier) was paid more than 5 months, and it was decided that Defendant New Settlement Bank did not collect the above loans and the remaining funds from Defendant New Settlement Bank in light of the trust management system and its trust management.

(7) Accordingly, on December 191, 1991, Nonparty 2 refused a demand to provide a loan amount of KRW 3,360,000,000 or KRW 3,500,000 for new shares due to the disclosure of the company due to the shortage of funds for driving, etc., Nonparty 2 refused to submit a plan to dispose of the company’s difficult circumstances and again delayed the repayment of the above loan. However, Nonparty 2 refused a demand to provide a loan of KRW 500,000 or KRW 300,000 with the bank’s settlement funds, or KRW 300,000,000 with interest or KRW 30,00,000 with the bank’s settlement funds, and then offered the above loan of KRW 1,50,000, KRW 300,000 with the face value and KRW 3000,000 with the above new shares issued by Defendant 24th of the same month.

(8) Meanwhile, on November 191, 191, at the office of the Director General of the Financial Supervisory Service of the Korea Securities and Exchange (the Korea Securities & Exchange) around November 22, 1992, the non-party B, who was the director of the Korea Securities and Exchange (the Korea Securities & Exchange) demanded that the stocks will not be sold within at least three months after being listed at the request of the defendant U.S. U. S. S. on December 20 of the same year until the stock market is stable, although the non-party B, who was the director of the Korea Securities and Exchange (the non-party B, at the request of the defendant U.S. U.S. on January 22, 1992, he promised that the stocks will not be sold for six months or one year after being listed at the request of the defendant U.S. S. S. on January 22, 192).

(9) However, as seen above on January 23, 192, the shares listed in Defendant New Settlement Co., Ltd. were determined to be KRW 14,500 per share more than the initially anticipated amount due to the operation of the same Han-ho Lake, etc., and Nonparty B, who was well aware of the financial situation, etc. in Defendant New Settlement Co., Ltd., was clearly aware that the shares in Defendant New Settlement Bank will continue to decline at the above beginning price. Thus, Nonparty B, who continued to hold 482,00 shares above, violated an agreement on February 1, 1992, that the shares will not be sold for the remainder of the first period of time, in which there were concerns over a sudden decline in stock prices, and that the shares will not be sold for 80,930 shares in Defendant New Settlement Bank via an account in the name of Defendant New Settlement Bank, were sold for 11,300 through 11,51,500 shares per share, 200, 2800 shares and 400 shares per share up to 26, 2616460,26.

(g) Defendant U.S. Bank (hereinafter referred to as the “U.S. Bank”) knowing that it had the same 6-day deposit amount of KRW 70,00,00 on April 15, 192 after the listing of Defendant U.S. New Bank; it had the same 60-day deposit amount of KRW 6,500 per share; KRW 80 per 60-day deposit amount of KRW 70,000 per 6-day deposit amount; KRW 7,000 per 6-day deposit amount of KRW 7,00 per 60 per 60-day deposit amount; KRW 7,000 per 60 per 6-day deposit amount; KRW 7,90 per 60 per 6-day deposit amount; and KRW 7,000 per 6-day deposit amount of KRW 320 per 60 per 6-day deposit amount to Defendant U.S. Bank; and 4,000 per 6-day deposit amount per 60-day.

H. On April 28, 1992, Defendant New Settlement Co., Ltd. was unable to deposit KRW 7,520,000 as above and KRW 2,240,000 on the 29th day of the same month, each of the above bills was disposed of in default. The current account transaction with a creditor bank was suspended from the 30th day of the same month, and such default was announced to the Korea Stock Exchange on the 30th day of the same month.

I. (1) On April 29, 1992, the Plaintiff purchased KRW 60,000 per share of the above KRW 10,000,000 per share without knowing that the above shares were listed illegally, since the stock price of the Defendant’s new land was continuously lowered after listing, and thereafter, the Plaintiff purchased KRW 60,000 per share without knowing that the shares of the Defendant’s new land were listed illegally. On the 30th day of the same month, the shares of the Defendant’s new land were not traded at KRW 5,50 per share, KRW 5,50 per share, KRW 5,40 per share, and KRW 5,40 per share on July 30 of the same year, KRW 50 per share, KRW 5,400 per share, and KRW 2,150 per share on July 27, 1992.

(2) As above, the Plaintiff continued to hold the above shares on September 18, 198 of the same year; KRW 890 per share; KRW 570 per share on October 10 of the same year; KRW 1,100 per share on September 9 of the same year; KRW 550 per share; and KRW 8,700 per share on KRW 590 per share; and collected KRW 5,884,000 per share on the initial purchase price of KRW 10,000 per share.

2. Claim against Defendant leap, the same development financing on behalf of the same person, the same North Korean bank, the same new stuff, and the same red dust;

A. Occurrence of damages liability

(1) Grounds for liability

3) Defendant 1

① According to the above, Defendant Shin Young-chul had been in charge of external audit since the business year 1987, which became a corporation subject to external audit, and has been continuously in charge of external audit since the business year 1987, and the fact that Defendant Shin Young-chul had been aware of a huge amount of deficit each business year, and had the person in charge of accounting take over the inventory assets, credit sales, bills, etc. in the balance sheet at the time of settlement of accounts every business year in return for the payment of a certain amount of monthly remuneration from Defendant Hong-jin in return for the payment of the monthly remuneration from the representative director. In short, he had the person in charge of accounting take over the obligation such as payment bills and credit purchase bills under the balance sheet, and had the person in charge of accounting take over the amount of net income as if the net income occurred by means of underappropriating the manufacturing cost of the current product products under the profit and loss statement. Furthermore, he prepared a false audit report on the above false financial statements, in particular, since the establishment of the new company was accumulated, it has failed to meet the requirements of the company disclosure.

② However, Article 14 of the Regulations on Securities and Exchange (No. 7-2) and Article 15 of the Securities Listing Regulations (No. 7-6) established by the Korea Stock Exchange (No. 7-6) shall have passed five years after its establishment as a requirement for corporate disclosure. The requirements, such as the paid-in capital of at least three billion won and its own capital shall be at least five billion won for the latest three business years, and the turnover shall be at least an average of at least 15 billion won for the latest three business years. The rate of capital gains for the latest three business years shall be at least 15 billion won for commercial banks as at the end of the latest business year, and the rate of capital gains for the remaining two business years shall be at least the highest rate of time deposits as at the end of the pertinent business year. Article 9 of the Securities and Exchange Act provides that the auditor's opinion on the financial statements for the latest three business years shall be deemed to have been proper or limited, and Article 80 of the Securities and Exchange Act provides that the defendant's new financial statements disclosure statement prepared by the auditor's opinion shall be deemed to be more than 000.

③ In general, in a claim for damages arising from a tort, the claimant must prove that the damage suffered by the claimant was caused by the other party’s harmful act. However, as in the instant case, if a strict demand is made to the effect that the shares of an insolvent company, which cannot be listed on the Korea Stock Exchange are illegally listed, even in a claim for damages on the ground that the shares of the insolvent company have been illegally listed, it would not conform to the concept of

In other words, the disclosure of an enterprise would cause enormous capital through the issuance of new shares, and the prior shareholder would be easy to recover invested capital by disposing of the shares through the Stock Exchange. Meanwhile, a person who intends to sell or purchase a certain share in the stock market generally trades among unspecified investors through the Stock Exchange. Considering that the company’s property status, business prospects, the Government’s economic policy, the economic situation, such as the outlook of the industry, prices, interest rates, and other complex factors such as the economic situation at home and abroad, and international political situation, etc. reasonable consideration of the company’s financial situation, the company may gain profits by holding the shares, and the profit rate is at least possible when a reasonable expectation of return on investment other than the other issue’s stocks or shares is high, and the market price of the shares is so established at the point where the company’s financial structure is extremely difficult to meet the above-mentioned factors due to the nature of the company’s stock market price increase, and thus, if it is difficult for the company to suffer losses from the company’s financial structure from time to time due to the lack of sound financial structure.

Therefore, in the claim for damages caused by the illegal listing of the shares of an insolvent company which cannot be listed on the Stock Exchange as in this case, the claimant shall be satisfied by proving that there is a substantial causal relationship between the respondent's act and the illegal listing of the insolvent company, and that the claimant suffered damages from purchasing the shares in good faith, and that the perpetrator shall not be exempted from the liability unless it proves that the damage of the victim was caused by other causes than the illegal listing of the shares, such as a sudden change in economic situation, etc.

④ In the case of this case, it is hard to prove that the Plaintiff suffered loss by purchasing the shares of Defendant New Settlement Co., Ltd., which were illegally listed by the Plaintiff (as seen earlier, even if the Plaintiff was negligent in relation to this point, it is considered as the grounds for comparative negligence). The facts that the shares of Defendant New Settlement Co., Ltd would not have been listed if there were no false audit report and accounting guidance for the settlement of accounts and false audit report on the settlement of accounts of Defendant YYYY, as seen earlier, are due to reasons other than the illegal listing of shares. Thus, Defendant YYY is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages caused to the Plaintiff due to the purchase of the shares as a tort, who led Defendant New Settlement Co., Ltd. to guide the settlement of accounts of the shares of Defendant New Settlement Co., Ltd. and to prepare a false audit report.

⑤ Article 197 of the Securities and Exchange Act provides that Article 17(2) through (4) of the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies shall apply mutatis mutandis to the auditor’s liability for damages to a bona fide investor. Article 17(2) of the same Act and Article 17(1) of the same Act that applies mutatis mutandis thereto provide that if an auditor fails to enter important matters in an audit report or makes a false entry into an audit report and thereby causes damage to a third party, the auditor shall be liable for the damages to the third party. In such cases, in the case of an auditor who is a joint accounting office or audit team, the certified public accountant who has participated in the audit of the company concerned shall be jointly liable for the damages. Article 3 of the same Act provides that an auditor shall be an accounting firm, joint accounting office, or audit team under the Certified Public Accountant Act, and Defendant leap Bonds shall not be liable for damages as a certified public accountant belonging to an accounting firm under the Certified Public Accountant Act.

However, Article 17(2) through (4) of the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies, which applies mutatis mutandis under Article 197 of the Securities and Exchange Act, shall not be deemed to exclude a certified public accountant, who is not a statutory auditor, from liability for damages caused by a tort under Article 750 of the Civil Act, on the ground that the above provision does not stipulate important matters in an audit report as one type of tort in cases where an auditor does not enter or makes a false statement in an audit report, taking into account that it is difficult to prove a tort in a lawsuit seeking compensation for damages caused by a stock transaction, and that the burden of proof is not satisfied unless he proves that he did not neglect his duties.

3) Defendant Substitute Development Finance

① A business start-up investment company established under the Act on the Support for Small and Medium Enterprise Establishment as the applicable law. The above Defendant is a company specialized in collecting investment money and obtaining profits from its investment by making its management funds an investment association with promising small and medium enterprises by combining them with capital, and by disposing of its equity shares. The above Defendant’s business start-up investment company, such as the above Defendant, under the above Act, shall be deemed to have been granted financial benefits such as borrowing funds and issuing bonds, and special cases in taxation. Meanwhile, the above Defendant concluded a joint investment agreement with Defendant’s new financial company (in cases where a high-tech investment association is a joint venture, the above Defendant, who is its executive partner, shall actually carry out its business operations) with the above general financial company, and if it is necessary, it shall be deemed that the above Defendant’s new financial company has an obligation to disclose its products, sales status, progress of factory construction, its business plan, its business plan, matters entered in the register, and its list of shareholders, etc., and if necessary, it shall be deemed that the Defendant’s new financial investment company will be able to correct and correct its new financial development.

② However, it was well known that at least the Defendant’s new financial institution was unable to conduct its normal business activities within a short period without any change in circumstances, upon receiving a request from the Defendant’s new financial institution from time to time after reporting the current status of the supply and demand of the Defendant’s new financial institution by telephone, the scale of the exchange funds, and the payment measures for bills, etc. (this point may be confirmed sufficiently in light of the fact that the Defendant’s new financial institution’s new financial institution’s new financial institution’s new financial institution’s new financial institution’s new financial institution’s receipt of a request for operational funds from the Defendant’s new financial institution’s bank, and at least by taking extreme pressure prior to the disclosure of the institution’s new financial institution’s new financial institution’s financial institution’s financial activities, and the Defendant’s new financial institution’s new financial institution’s receipt of the new financial institution’s new financial institution’s financial institution’s receipt of the deposit of new financial institution’s funds after the beginning of 191.

③ Furthermore, with respect to the issue of causation between the above act of Defendant Alternative Development Bank and the losses suffered by the Plaintiff, in a lawsuit claiming compensation for damages caused by illegally listing the stocks of an insolvent company which cannot be listed on the Korea Stock Exchange as seen earlier, it is sufficient to view that the claimant has a substantial causal relationship between the respondent's act and the unlawful listing of the insolvent company, and that the claimant suffers losses due to the purchase of the relevant stocks in good faith by the claimant, and that the perpetrator cannot be exempted from liability unless the victim proves that he suffered losses due to any other cause than listing. The fact that the Plaintiff suffered losses in good faith by purchasing the stocks of the Defendant New Settlement Bank is recognized as above. According to the above, it is reasonable to view that there is a substantial causal relationship between the act of the Defendant New Settlement Bank (the omission of a violation of the duty of due care to prevent the illegal listing of the Defendant New Settlement Bank) and the illegal listing of the stocks of the Defendant New Settlement Bank. However, since the Defendant Alternative Development Bank did not prove that the Plaintiff suffered losses due to the Plaintiff's unlawful purchase of the stocks, it should not be held liable as the Defendant New Development Bank.

(3) Defendant Jeonbuk Bank

① According to the above facts, as the principal bank of the Defendant New Bank, the Defendant New Bank is an internal member under Article 188-2 (1) 4 of the Securities and Exchange Act. The Defendant New Bank, a listed corporation, was aware of the fact that the Defendant New Bank paid 70 million won or more on April 15, 1992 from the Defendant Jeonbuk Bank, and 7,520,000 won or more on April 28, 1992 from the Defendant Jeonbuk Bank, in connection with its principal bank's duties. The above fact of default falls under Article 188-2 (2) 1 of the Securities and Exchange Act, which is used in Article 188-2 (2) of the same Act, and is a fact that may have a significant impact on investors' judgment on investment. The above information was disclosed to the public through the public announcement of the Stock Exchange on the 30th of the same month, and thus, it was not yet disclosed to the public by the 10th of the said new shares exchange on the 30th of the same month.

(2) Article 188-3 (1) of the Securities and Exchange Act provides that a person who has conducted an internal transaction in violation of Article 188-2 of the same Act shall be liable for damages incurred by a person who has conducted a sale or purchase or any other transaction of the securities concerned in connection with the sale or purchase or any other transaction. In light of the fact that it is substantially impossible to determine the identity of the perpetrator and to hold the identity of the investors who suffered from the unfair transaction by the market participant due to the characteristics of the securities market transaction in a non-large scale and collectively formed, the above provision shall be deemed to be a type of unfair trade practices that may cause damages to other market participants, and the burden of proving the causal relationship shall be mitigated within the extent where the internal transaction is defined and the internal transaction is recognized.

However, if it is interpreted as a person who has traded securities of the same item as that of an internal trader who is the other party liable for damages by a person who has traded securities of the same item as that of an internal trader under the above provision, the volume of securities traded by the internal trader shall be liable for damages to all the securities traders even if the volume of securities traded by the internal trader is extremely low in light of the total market size of the securities concerned, and in such a case, it is difficult to recognize the causal relationship between the internal trader and the damage. Therefore, it is not in line with the above legislative intent of the above provision, but it is difficult to recognize the causal relationship between the internal trader and the damage. On the other hand, if the "person who has traded securities or made the other transaction" is limited to only the direct transaction counterpart of the internal trader in the securities market in question, it is difficult to confirm the other party as above, and its legislative intent shall be annulled because most

Therefore, in light of the legislative intent of the above provision, "the other party who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the other who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the

③ In the instant case, on April 29, 1992. 09:27, the Defendant Jeonbuk Bank sold orders to sell all shares of 71,000 new shares through the Youngdong Branch of the Korea Stock Exchange, instead of the Korea Stock Exchange. As such, 800 shares out of 71,000 shares of 71,000 shares at the same simultaneous house to form the beginning price on the date, and 70,200 shares remaining after the completion of the above simultaneous house price, the Plaintiff sold shares of 6,90 shares from 0:40 to 10:09 each at 2,90 shares, 6,000 shares, 7,90 shares, 6,000 shares, 6,000 shares, 58,510 shares shares, which were sold at the same time with the Plaintiff’s new shares purchase at the same time as the Defendant Stock Exchange, and the Plaintiff was liable for damages to the Plaintiff’s new shares purchase at the same time as the Plaintiff’s new shares purchase and sale at the same 106070 shares.

(3) Defendant Shin Jong-jin, the same kind of luxin

① The Plaintiff’s assertion as the cause of the instant claim against the said Defendants is as follows.

i) Defendant Hongjin, the representative director of Defendant New Year’s Accounting System, is an insolvent company whose financial structure is weak and pressured after the establishment of the new financial statements for the above 5th fiscal year, and thus, failed to meet the requirement for corporate disclosure. However, from February 1989, he prepared for the disclosure of Defendant New Year’s Accounting System from around 199 to the point of view of its management difficulties through taxation and financial benefits, he was in charge of the 5th fiscal year after the establishment of the new financial statements for the above 190 fiscal year, 4 billion won or more as of the end of the 190 fiscal year, and 6th fiscal year after the 5th fiscal year after the 190 fiscal statement for the above 5th fiscal year, 15 billion won or more for the above 6th fiscal year, and 15 billion won or more for the above 6th fiscal year’s new financial statements for the 1st fiscal year, and 4th fiscal year or more for the above 5th fiscal year’s old financial statements to the above 15th fiscal year’s new financial statements.

ii) In preparing and submitting a securities registration statement to the Securities and Exchange for the disclosure of the company, the Defendant’s new settlement of accounts accepted the false financial statements and the false audit opinion thereon from the business year 198 to the business year 1991, which became a divisible settlement of accounts, and also accepted the same financial statements and audit opinion as the prospectus kept in the Stock Exchange, etc.

(iii) On April 29, 1992, the Plaintiff believed that the financial statements, etc. cited in the above prospectus, etc. are true, and purchased 10,000 shares of Defendant New Settlement Place per share in the amount of KRW 6,000 per share, and immediately thereafter, Defendant New Settlement Place was publicly announced on the 30th day of the same month, thereby resulting in a fluctuation in the stock price of Defendant New Settlement Place.

(2) Pursuant to Article 139 of the Civil Procedure Act, it shall be deemed that Defendant Shin Jong-jin and the same U.S. Hong Jin have led to the confession of all of the Plaintiff’

(3) Thus, in this case where the plaintiff sought compensation for damages or tort damages against the above defendants pursuant to Article 14 of the Securities and Exchange Act (amended by Act No. 4469 of Dec. 31, 1991; hereinafter referred to as the "former Securities and Exchange Act"), the defendant's new settlement is the issuer who made a false statement in the securities registration statement and the prospectus, and unless there are special circumstances as the (representative) director, the defendant's new settlement is liable to compensate for damages caused by the plaintiff's acquisition of shares of the defendant's new settlement pursuant to Article 14 of the former Securities and Exchange Act (the above constructive facts reveal that the defendant's new settlement is insufficient company that did not meet the requirement for the disclosure of the company and purchased shares of the defendant's new settlement system illegally and thereby caused damages to the plaintiff, and the defendant's new settlement is also liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages due to the tort, and as long as the defendant's new settlement does not have any causation between the plaintiff's tort and the tort's damage claim against the defendant's tort.

(2) As seen above, as the mutual relationship between Defendant Ha Young-gu, the same development financing, the same North Korea bank, the same new control place, and the same Hongjin-jin's liability for damages, Defendant Ha Young-jin's liability for damages is each tort. The ground for Defendant Ha Young-do's liability for damages is Article 188-3 (1) of the Securities and Exchange Act, and the ground for Defendant Ha Young-jin's liability for damages is that Article 14 of the former Securities and Exchange Act, Article 188-3 (1) of the Securities and Exchange Act, and Article 14 of the former Securities and Exchange Act shall be deemed to stipulate the types of liability for damages caused by tort. Accordingly, the above Defendants against the Plaintiff shall be deemed to be in the relationship between the Plaintiff and each other.

(3) Whether or not to exempt or limit liability

However, in full view of the facts stated in subparagraph 6-1, 2, 3, and 8-1, 8-1, 25, and 3, 4-3, and 15-4 of the evidence Nos. 15-2 and the fact-finding with respect to the Korea Stock Exchange President of this Court, the shares of the Defendant New Stock Exchange shall be purchased at a certain price of 6,200 won for the above 20th day of April of the same year after the commencement of the market price after the beginning of the market price, and the overall price of 14,500 won for the above 14,00 won for the above 20th day of the same month. According to the above facts-finding, the Plaintiff’s securities market, which is an open major company, purchased the above shares in large volume from the 20th day of the same month to the 20th day of the date of issuance, and the above 20th day of the above 20th day of the issuance of new shares for the above 27th day of the same month.

The plaintiff's negligence caused the loss of this case. However, since it does not reach the extent of exempting the above defendants from the liability for damages of this case, it shall be taken into account in determining the amount of damages that the above defendants should compensate for, but it is reasonable to deem that the ratio of comparative negligence exceeds 15% in light of the above facts. Thus, the above defendants' liability against the plaintiff is limited to the portion of 85%, excluding the ratio of comparative negligence.

(b) Scope of damages;

(1) Article 15 of the Securities and Exchange Act provides that the amount of damages to be compensated in cases where the issuer, etc. is liable for damages due to false statements in the registration statement, etc. pursuant to Article 14 of the same Act shall be the amount calculated by deducting the disposal price when the victim disposes of the stocks at the market price at the time of the closing of argument or the closing of argument in the acquisition of the securities concerned from the amount actually paid by the victim (Article 14 of the same Act was amended on December 31, 191, but Article 15 of the same Act on the scope of compensation for damages has not been amended). Thus, it is reasonable to view that the scope of compensation in cases of liability for damages caused by illegal listing of stocks and liability for damages pursuant to Article 188-3 (1) of the Securities and Exchange Act due to violation of the Regulations on the Prohibition of Internal

(2) In this case, on April 29, 1992, the Plaintiff paid KRW 60,000 per share with the purchase fund of KRW 10,000 per share of Defendant New Settlement Co., Ltd., and thereafter, the Plaintiff collected KRW 5,884,00 per share with the purchase price of KRW 10,000 per share among the 10,000 shares of the above shares, KRW 890 per share, KRW 100 per share, KRW 570 per share, KRW 100 per share on August 10, 1992, KRW 550 per share, and KRW 8,70 per share, KRW 5,84,000 per share respectively, and collected from each of the above sale price as seen earlier.

(3) Accordingly, the amount of damages suffered by the Plaintiff in this case is KRW 54,116,00,000 remaining after deducting the amount of KRW 5,884,000 that was disposed of and recovered from 60,000 from the funds for purchase of the above shares before the closing of the argument in this case. However, considering the negligence as seen earlier by the Plaintiff, it is reasonable to set the amount of damages that the Defendants are liable to compensate for to the Plaintiff as the principal amount of damages that the Defendants are liable to compensate for to the Plaintiff, as the amount of KRW 45,98,60 [54,116,00 x 1-0.15].

3. Claim against the defendant for securities or the same mineral name;

A. Existence of liability for damages against Defendant’s securities

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff's assertion as to the grounds for the responsibility of defendant's securities is as follows.

(2) Although the financial statements such as the balance sheet must be examined by ascertaining whether the financial statements, such as the balance sheet, are true by visiting customers of the Defendant’s new settlement system, as an employee of the Defendant’s securities company, who entered into a contract for the total amount of shares issued in accordance with the company disclosure and the subscription contract between Defendant New settlement system and Defendant New settlement system, it is not clear that the financial statements such as the balance sheet, etc. are substantially satisfied the requirements for the company disclosure. However, the financial statements of Defendant New settlement system were received from Defendant New settlement system and neglected to perform the above duty of care, thereby making it clear that the financial statements of Defendant New settlement system were divisible accounting. The Plaintiff suffered damages due to the negligence in the execution of the above affairs, such as Kim Yong-nam, etc., which was caused by the Plaintiff’s purchase of the shares listed in Defendant New settlement system. Thus, Defendant New settlement system is liable for compensation for the damages suffered by the Plaintiff as the employer.

() The Plaintiff acquired shares with the belief that the securities registration statement and prospectus of the Defendant New Settlement Place, which were falsely recorded, were true. The Defendant’s securities constitute a person who entered into an underwriting contract between Defendant New Settlement Place and Defendant New Settlement System, which is subject to the disclosure of the company, and constitutes a person who entered into and issued the said securities registration statement and prospectus, and thus constitutes Article 14 subparag. 3 and 4 of the Securities and Exchange Act.

(2) Determination:

3) As to the assertion of employer liability

(1) In order to identify whether the financial statements of an enterprise subject to acquisition are true on the securities side of the Defendant, which is the company acquiring the shares following the disclosure of the Defendant New Settlement System, and to examine whether the enterprise actually satisfies the requirements for corporate disclosure by analyzing the securities based on such facts, the relevant provisions are examined, and the statements in the evidence No. 7-2 and No. 3 are examined.

Article 9 of the Regulations on the Acquisition of Securities and Exchange established by the Securities and Exchange Commission provides that financial matters necessary to analyze whether the stocks are subject to acquisition [referring to the requirements for the disclosure of companies recognized in paragraph 1(c)(2) above] in analyzing the stocks of a company to be disclosed to the public shall be based on financial statements reflecting the results of supervision on the auditor’s audit report on financial statements for the last two business years.

Article 2 of the Securities and Exchange Act provides that, in applying the above standards, the standards for the analysis of securities established by a securities business association in order to determine the details of securities analysis as delegated pursuant to Article 13 of the above Securities and Exchange Act shall be based on the revised financial statements of auditors under Article 182 of the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies, which are invoked by Article 182 of the Securities and Exchange Act. In analyzing securities, Article 4 of the above standards provides that the executive secretary may collect from the issuing company the articles of incorporation, the certified copy of the corporate register, the plan for use of funds, the audit report of auditors, the financial statements of the last two business years, the estimated financial statements between the last two years, the repayment plan for repayment of principal and interest

② Based on the above provisions, in order to determine whether a company’s financial statements and audit reports thereon to be disclosed to the weekly company are true, it should be deemed that at least a weekly company has the authority to request the company to be disclosed to allow the inspection or submission of such accounting books and related documents, or to appoint separate auditors to investigate its business and financial status, and to conduct audits on the company to be disclosed. In the absence of such authority, Article 2 of the above-mentioned Guidelines for the Analysis of Securities Act provides that a weekly company may demand the submission of “other necessary materials” against the company to be disclosed. However, in light of the provisions of the above provision and the contents, it cannot be deemed that the company to be disclosed to the weekly company upon only the above provision requires the inspection or submission of the accounting books and related documents about the company to be disclosed, and that the company’s audit report, which is the company’s weekly company, has the authority to verify whether the company is obligated to disclose its business and financial status, and that there is no need to further examine whether the company is obligated to disclose its affairs and financial statements under the Act on External Audit and other strict Standards.

③ In addition, with regard to the fact that the employees of the Defendant’s securities received money and valuables from the Defendant’s new position and neglected to perform their duties and conducted false analysis, the Nonparty 1,00,000 won was received from the Defendant’s U.S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S.s. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S.s.s.s.s. S.s.s. S.s.s. S.s.s.s.s.s. S.s.s. S. S. S.s. S.s.s.s.s.s.s. S.s.s.s..s...s................s.......................s..........................................

As to the claim for damages under Article 14 of the Securities and Exchange Act

① During the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Defendant’s securities first concluded a contract to underwrite the said securities with an issuer under Article 14 subparag. 3 of the Securities and Exchange Act, which is liable for damages. The above provision is a new provision under Article 469 of the Securities and Exchange Act, which was amended by Act No. 4469 of Dec. 31, 191, which was not provided for above, and cannot be liable for damages based on the above provision newly established on Nov. 8, 1990, which was newly established at the time of the enforcement of the former Securities and Exchange Act. Accordingly, the above assertion is without merit, and the Defendant’s securities are liable for damages as “the person who prepared or delivered the prospectus under Article 14 subparag. 4 of the former Securities and Exchange Act,” and the above provision also is established as a new provision under Article 14 subparag. 4 of the former Securities and Exchange Act through the revision of Article 14 subparag. 31 of the Securities and Exchange Act at the time of the amendment. 14 of the former Securities and Exchange Act.

② Article 12(1) of the former Securities and Exchange Act provides that when the securities are publicly offered or sold or the new stocks are issued, the responsibility for preparing a prospectus shall be deemed to be against the issuer of the securities. Thus, the person who prepared the prospectus of this case for the public offering of new stocks in a new settlement place shall be deemed to be the issuer of the securities, and even if the securities against the defendant actually performed the business of preparing the prospectus of this case, the securities against the defendant shall not be deemed to be the issuer of the securities. However, the fact that the securities against the defendant were delivered to the Korea Stock Exchange and the company in charge of preparing a prospectus for the public offering of new stocks issued through the public offering of new stocks from the place of the new settlement place as a major social company entrusted with the acquisition and public offering of new stocks through the public offering of the above new stocks, the securities against the defendant shall be deemed to be the issuer of the new settlement place and shall not be deemed to be the issuer of the securities, barring any special circumstance. Therefore, the defendant's securities shall be liable for damages caused by the plaintiff's acquisition of the new settlement place.

Therefore, even if the above prospectus did not know false facts despite considerable attention, it should be determined whether the non-party 1 was responsible for the issuance of a prospectus under Article 14 of the Securities and Exchange Act as the non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's new financial statements.

Therefore, since the above defense against the defendant's securities is well-grounded, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

(3) If so, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant against the securities is without merit to examine other points.

B. Existence of liability for damages by Defendant Han-ho Lake

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff's assertion as to the grounds for Defendant Han-ho's liability is as follows.

(2) Defendant Korea-U.S.C. (1) even though it is well known that Defendant U.S. land price is an insolvent company that cannot be listed, Defendant U.S.C. (2) conspired with Defendant U.S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S.S. Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant U.S. S. S.S. S

(2) As to the shares of Non-party 1,630 shares of Non-party 1,630 shares of Non-party 1,650 shares of Non-party 1,630 shares of Non-party 1, which are the representative director of Non-party 1, who owns the shares of Non-party 8% of the shares of Non-party 1, and is the non-party 1,630 shares of Non-party 50,00 shares of Non-party 50,000 shares of Non-party 1, the non-party 1, who is the non-party 1,50 shares of Non-party 2,00 shares of Non-party 1

(2) Determination:

As to the assertion of tort liability

① Of the Plaintiff’s assertion, as to the assertion that, even though he was well aware of the fact that the Defendant Han-ho was an insolvent company whose name could not be listed, the Defendant Han-ho was in collusion with the representative director, in collusion, in preparing financial statements, etc. or aiding and abetting the preparation of such financial statements, etc. of the Defendant Han-ho, the grounds for further review are without merit, since there is no evidence to acknowledge the fact that

(2) Next, as to the assertion that the Plaintiff had the Plaintiff believe that the shares of the Defendant New Telecommunication were promising to be able to be able to be invested, in collusion with the Defendant U.S. Hongjin, the number of the shares of the Defendant New Telecommunication shall be set at KRW 8,00 per 0 per 5,00 won per 0,000 won per 0,000 won per 0,000 won per 0,000 won per 0,000 won per 5,00 won per 0,000 won per 0,000 won per 5,00 won per 0,000 won per 5,00 won per 5,00 won per 0,000 won per 5,00 won per 0,00 won per 0,000 won per 5,00 won per 5,00 won per 5,00 won per 5,00 won per 10,000 new shares per 3,00.

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff purchased the above shares as a result of the Plaintiff’s belief that the shares of the Defendant New Settlement was a promising share with a good investment outlook due to Defendant Han-ho’s above operation of the beginning price. In light of our rule of experience, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Plaintiff’s purchase of shares was a promising share to make a large amount of profits to investors solely on the fact that the beginning price of a certain shares was formed at a high level. Moreover, as of April 29, 192, the Plaintiff purchased the shares of the Defendant Han-ho as of April 29, 192, after three months from the date of the beginning operation of the Defendant Han-ho’s New Settlement, and then, thereafter, at that time, purchased the above shares at the above price, as seen earlier, because the above price of shares was reduced to KRW 6,00,000 per share, it is difficult to view that there was any causal relationship between the Defendant Han-ho’s manipulation at the beginning and the Plaintiff’s purchase of the above shares.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

As to the assertion of liability for damages under Article 188-3 of the Securities and Exchange Act

Article 188 of the Securities and Exchange Act provides that anyone who owns 10/100 or more of the total number of shares issued by a listed corporation on his own account regardless of whose name it is the principal shareholder, and Article 188-2 (1) 4 and Article 188-2 (2) 2 of the same Act provides that if a major shareholder is a corporation, any of its officers, employees, and agents shall be subject to the same Article. Thus, even according to the plaintiff's assertion itself, since the non-party friendly business start-up investment whose representative director is the defendant Han-ho owns 8% of the shares of the defendant Han-ho branch, it cannot be deemed that he is an internal person subject to the prohibition of transaction under Article 188-2 of the same Act on the ground of the violation of the prohibition of inside trading regulations, the person who holds the right to claim compensation for damages under Article 188-3 (1) of the same Act on the ground that he is required to trade securities with the internal person in the opposite direction at the same time as that of the plaintiff's bank prior to the defendant.

(3) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Han-ho is without merit without any need to further examine other points.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, Defendant New Jong-gu, the same U.S. S., development financing, and Jeonbuk-gu bank have the obligation to pay to each of the above Defendants 45,98,60 won as to the purchase date of the Plaintiff’s shares, and the amount from April 29, 1992 to May 6, 1994, the date of this decision, from April 29, 1992, the Plaintiff’s share purchase date to May 6, 1994, and the damages for delay at the rate of 25% per annum as prescribed by the Special Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (the Plaintiff sought damages for delay from the day after the delivery date of the copy of the complaint to the day of the decision. However, it is reasonable to resist the existence and scope of the above Defendants’ obligation to pay damages for delay. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim against the above Defendants is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and each of the Plaintiff’s remaining claims against the Defendants and the Defendant’s securities and its claim against each of this case is dismissed.

Judges Lee Woo-soo (Presiding Judge)