In light of the records, it is difficult to view that the plaintiff filed a claim for damages based on Article 188-4 and 5 of the Securities and Exchange Act, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal by the submission of the complaint in this case. Thus, the first ground of appeal is without merit, and on the contrary premise, the court below determined that the claim for damages based on the above provision was added to the court below and the extinctive prescription under the above Act was completed. Thus, the court below did not err in failing to perform its duty of explanation in relation to the above claim.

2. On the third ground for appeal

The one-year extinctive prescription of the claim for damages based on the basis of Article 188-4 and 5 of the Securities and Exchange Act shall be calculated from the time when the claimant becomes aware of the fact that the violation occurred, and it shall not be calculated from the time when the judgment of conviction against the offender was pronounced or final and conclusive.

Upon examining the records, we affirm the judgment of the court below that the plaintiff was aware of the above violation of the law at the latest, and there is no error as pointed out in the grounds of appeal, and the Supreme Court precedents cited by the plaintiff are different from the case, and it is not appropriate to invoke them.

3. On the fourth ground for appeal

Upon examining the records by the evidence of the judgment, we affirm the fact-finding of the court below, and there is no error in violation of the rules of evidence as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Song Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)