손해배상 청구의 소
1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.
2. All plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
3.(a)
upon request for the return of provisional payments.
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the facts is as follows: (a) the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, i.e., the part of the 2nd to 6nd to 13th, which is the part of the 2nd to 6nd to 10th to 420
2. Judgment on the grounds of the plaintiffs' claims
A. Article 176(4)1 of the former Capital Markets Act (amended by Act No. 11845, May 28, 2013; hereinafter the same) provides that “No one shall cause a fluctuation in the market price of underlying assets of exchange-traded derivatives with an intention to earn, or cause a third party to earn, unjust profits in trading listed securities or exchange-traded derivatives.” Article 177(1) of the same Act provides that “any person who violates Article 176 shall be liable for damages incurred by a person who trades or entrusts trading of listed securities or exchange-traded derivatives at the price formed by such offense.”
B. Meanwhile, according to the above facts, H, an employee of the Defendant Dota Bank, who is an employee of the Defendant Dota Bank, established a speculative propagation on the decline in the share price index 200, and following the closing simultaneous sale of stocks at the same time, H, which is an employee of the Defendant Dota Bank, committed a market price manipulation (hereinafter “instant market price manipulation”) which makes the Defendants gain unfair profits from trading exchange-traded derivatives by lowering the share price index 200 through mass sale of stocks at the same time.
C. Therefore, since the above actions of A, D, F, and H constitute market price manipulation prohibited under Article 176 of the former Capital Markets Act, and thus, the liability for damages under Article 177(1) of the former Capital Markets Act is recognized, the Defendants, the above employees, are liable to compensate for the damages suffered by the Plaintiffs pursuant to Article 756 of the Civil Act.
3. The defendants' defenses of extinctive prescription.