[2] The case holding that there was no defect or negligence in the installation and management of a computer system, in case where the average number of orders per day increases more than 12 times for six months in the KOSO securities market, and where a person operating a KOSDAQ and managing a KOSDAQ securities market has extended the treatment capacity of the computer system four times through preparation work every three months in advance, and there was no error or negligence in its installation and management

[3] The case holding that there is no defect in the computer system of the COS securities market which is designed to process the correction and cancellation order together with other purchase and sale orders in the order of time of receipt

[2] The case holding that there was no defect or negligence in the installation and management of a computer system, in case where the average number of orders per day in the KOSDAQ-based securities market was increased by 12 times or more for six months, and where a person who operates a KOSDAQ-based securities market had a capacity to use the computer system extended by four times the number of orders per day through preparation work every three months in advance between them

[3] The cancellation and correction of an order shall be limited to a case where a transaction has not been effected among the received orders, and if a transaction has not been effected until the cancellation and correction orders have been received, the first order for trading shall not be deemed to have been cancelled or corrected simultaneously with the cancellation and correction orders. Thus, even if the order was received in the middle, it shall not be deemed that there is any defect in the design to process the order in the order of receipt time along with other purchase and sale orders, even if the order was received in the middle.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims against Defendant Hyundai Securities Co., Ltd. and the claims against Defendant KOSDAQ Stock Exchange are all dismissed.

3. Of the litigation costs, the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Hyundai Securities Co., Ltd. is divided into two parts, and one of them is assessed against the Plaintiff, respectively, and the remainder is assessed against the Plaintiff, and the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Hyundai Securities Co., Ltd.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The following facts are either in dispute between the parties, or acknowledged by the whole purport of Gap evidence 1 to 3, evidence 6, evidence 4-1, and evidence 6-2, witness lecture, Kim So-young's testimony and arguments.

A. Defendant Hyundai Securities Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant Hyundai Securities Co., Ltd.”) is a company that conducts securities business, such as buying and selling of securities, or acting as an intermediary or agent. The Defendant KOSDAQ Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant KOSDAQ”) is a company that operates a securities market in which stocks other than those listed on the Stock Exchange are traded. The Plaintiff is a customer who opened a stock consignment account at the Defendant Hyundai Securities Co., Ltd.’s Bridge branch on April 23, 199.

B. At around 11:30 on August 25, 1999, the Plaintiff: (a) entrusted Non-Party Kim So-dong, an employee of Defendant Hyundai Securities Non-Party, to issue an order for sale at KRW 23,600 per share, one of which is the maximum of 20,000 shares of communications to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Kim So-dong, through a device 13:33:45 on the same day, issued an order for sale at KRW 23,600 per share for 10,00 shares of the Plaintiff’s account; (b) issued an order for cancellation of purchase orders for KRW 13:34:24,24 shares; (c) the head of Kim So-dong, issued an order for purchase of shares at KRW 10,00 per share; (d) the head of the 13:25:250 shares issued and sold shares at KRW 900 per share, but the head of the 19:200 shares sold shares at KRW 250500 per share.260 shares.20

C. On August 27, 1999, the Plaintiff was notified of the purchase of shares 10,000 shares in the Plaintiff’s account on the same day, and was stated on the disposal scheme, and prevented losses from expanding due to the purchase and sale on August 27, 199. On the other hand, the Plaintiff sold 3,00 shares of Hyundai Motor Vehicles held by the Plaintiff at the time to sell 3,000 shares to meet losses or to reduce losses by disposing of the shares at an opportunity to increase the share price, and deposited 85,00,000 won at the time. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s account deposited 234,98,000 shares purchase price (22,90 won x 203,500 won x 9,980 won x 9,980 won x 9,929,350 won.

(d)As a result, the share price of the telecommunications has gradually decreased, and the Plaintiff and Kim Jong-tae sold 10,000 shares of the telecommunications to KRW 20,300 per share on September 14, 1999 as one of the last day of the discussions between them. Accordingly, 203,00,000 and KRW 809,000,000 as well as 201,381,000, which were deducted, were deposited in the Plaintiff’s account.

2. Chief;

The plaintiff's attorney is the cause of the claim in this case. The defendant Hyundai Securities is the user of Kim Jin-gun, and is liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages caused to the plaintiff due to negligence in handling the plaintiff's purchase order by mistake. The defendant KOSDAQ, despite its duty to not process the purchase order before the purchase order was processed, in spite of its duty not to process the purchase order, and there was about 50 minutes or more of the cancellation order received. This means that the defendant KOSDAQ failed to execute a contract for brokerage and consignment with the plaintiff as a representative of the plaintiff's Hyundai Securities or as a second representative of the plaintiff, and even if it is not a domestic affairs, it is the possessor of the defective computer system in which the cancellation order was received before the purchase order was processed but the purchase order was rejected and processed as it was, or as an employer of the employee who committed an error in the operation of the computer system as above, and is jointly liable with the defendant Hyundai Securities for compensation for damages suffered by the plaintiff.

3. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Determination as to the claim against Defendant Hyundai Securities

(1) Defendant Hyundai Securities’s employer liability

Defendant Hyundai Securities, as an employer of Kim So-gu, has a duty to compensate the damages suffered by the Plaintiff due to the tort that caused the Plaintiff to purchase 10,000 shares of communications by offering an purchase order against the Plaintiff’s demand for selling orders due to a mistake in the computer operation.

(2) Determination as to ratifications

(A) The chief of the State

The defendant Hyundai Securities Attorney Park Jong-chul, after hearing the plaintiff's statement that the order was dealt with by Kim So-young on the day of the case, he was found to be Kim So-young on August 26, 200 the next day and discussed on the issue of the disposal of this issue. The plaintiff argued that the plaintiff should have ratified the purchase of the above shares since the plaintiff sold the shares of Hyundai Motor in possession of the plaintiff, and the outstanding amount arising from the purchase of the shares of the communications will be settled in cash.

(B) Facts of recognition

The following facts are acknowledged according to the whole purport of evidence Nos. 6-1, 2, 10-1, and 3 of evidence Nos. 6-1, 2, and 10, and testimony and arguments of the witness classical and Kim So-young.

① On August 26, 26, the following day, the Plaintiff found Kim Jin-dong branch of modern securities and claimed that the Plaintiff purchased 10,000 shares for the first time on the post-measures without one’s entrustment, and thus, it cannot be accepted by the Plaintiff, and thus, he heard from Kim Jin-dong that he would not be responsible for it, and he would not be responsible for it in this case. The Kim Jin-dong is responsible for it. The company is responsible for it, which is a staff member in charge of personnel affairs, and that if this day is known, the company will be responsible for it, and that the remainder would be responsible for it, regardless of the form of personnel affairs, and the company will be responsible for it. Accordingly, the Plaintiff would not be responsible for it to the same person.

② On August 27, 201, the following day, the Plaintiff listened to the statement that if the Plaintiff did not make an attempted adjustment from the Kim Jong-dong, the sales of the other shares held by the Plaintiff is conducted at the lower limit and the losses are increased, and then, the Plaintiff’s losses incurred by the Plaintiff were subsequently demanded compensation from the Defendants. On the other hand, the Plaintiff did not dispose of the shares held by the Plaintiff’s modern automobile.

③ On September 14, 1999, the Plaintiff sold the shares by mistake, and then presented a written petition demanding the Defendant Hyundai Securities to compensate for the damages suffered by the Plaintiff, and upon the Plaintiff’s refusal, the Plaintiff filed an application for dispute conciliation with the Financial Supervisory Service on October 1999.

(C) the board:

According to the above facts, it is difficult to conclude that the obligation to compensate for the attempted amount due to the sale of other shares held by the plaintiff to the extent that the obligation to compensate for the attempted amount is ultimately borne by the defendant Hyundai Securities through the internal indemnity relationship, and that this case is subject to any disadvantage in personnel affairs by being known to the defendant Hyundai Securities, once taking into account the fact that the plaintiff adjusted the attempted amount due to the plaintiff's account instead of the defendant Hyundai Securities, and then, the purpose was to recover losses from the opportunity to increase the share price in the old stock market and to smoothly resolve the case without any damage to the plaintiff, the defendant and the defendant in the old stock market. Accordingly, it is difficult to deem that the plaintiff ratified the sale of the shares of this case which is null and void as alleged by the defendant, and further waives the claim for damages against the defendant Hyundai Securities.

B. Determination on the claim against the Defendant KOSDAQ

(1) Non-performance of obligations under a sale consignment agreement

The KOSDAQ is an intermediary operated by Defendant KOSDAQ as delegated by the Korea Securities Dealers Association established to intermediate sale and purchase transactions of securities as determined by the Presidential Decree. The Defendant KOSDAQ is merely an intermediary to buy and sell securities, if it is not an agent who executes a sales contract on behalf of a securities company or customer and executes such contract on behalf of a securities company or customer, not an agent who executes a sales contract on behalf of a securities company

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that the sale and purchase order issued by the defendant KOSDAQ after the receipt of the cancellation order was conducted in accordance with the original purchase order was not performed as a sub-agent of the defendant Hyundai Securities or a secondary agent of the plaintiff, as the plaintiff's agent, in the status of the plaintiff's agent.

(2) Liability as the possessor of a structure

(A) The following facts are acknowledged according to the whole purport of evidence Nos. 1 to 3, Nos. 4-4 to 10, and testimony and pleading of witness Kim-hee.

(1) The computerized system of the Common Securities Market is designed to process orders received from each securities company in the order of time of receipt by each securities company for each issue. Even if corrective or cancellation orders are received in the middle, it is designed to process them in the order of time of receipt along with other purchase and sale orders. This is the same not only in the KOSDAQ but also in the case of the developed countries such as the Stock Exchange market, the United States

(2) The KOSDAQ market does not have a transaction to the extent that the number of orders per day does not reach KRW 1,200 during a period of two years from July 1, 1996, and only on February 1, 199, the number of orders per day has exceeded KRW 13,595,000,000 per day, and thereafter the number of orders has increased to the extent of KRW 72,159,000 per day on May 1, 1999; KRW 153,69,000 per day on June 1, 1999; KRW 173,675 items on July 17, 199; KRW 171,621 items on August 1, 199; KRW 13,452 items on September 2, 199; KRW 13,54,79, Oct. 24, 199; KRW 196, May 39, 1996.

③ At the time of the establishment of a market on July 1, 1996, the Defendant KOSDAQ established TPPDM 2000 40,000 CPU with a daily treatment capacity of 40,000 and operated it without any problem until February 1, 1999. On February 7, 1999, the number of orders in the future exceeds 10,000 CPs continued to increase. On June 7, 1999, the electronic computer system had been extended to CPU with a capacity of 4 times more than the existing capacity of 160,00 CPU with a daily treatment capacity of 160,00 CPU. Since the number of orders thereafter continued to increase the number of orders in the number of orders to increase the number of orders to increase the number of orders to TPPM 480,000 and the number of orders to increase the number of orders to increase the capacity to 30,000 CPM 700,00.

④ The computerized system of the Defendant KOSDAQ is divided into ten parts, each of which may independently process orders, and the total number of orders issued by each group is divided into ten parts, depending on the number of orders on the day and then designed to be processed in an unreasonable manner. However, in a case where the number of orders issued by each group for a specific item is wide, or where the number of orders issued by each day is wide, or where the number of orders falls short of the number of orders issued by each group, the order processing may be delayed for the items allocated to the relevant smoke processing system regardless of the total number of orders issued by the computer system. In this case, in a case of a telecommunications share on the day of the instant case, the order processing was delayed as much as the number of orders issued by each group is so wide as to be traded.

⑤ The Defendant KOSDAQ published the fact that trade contracts and provision of market price information are delayed for about 20 to 45 minutes on four occasions, including 09:15, 10:15, 13:30, and 14:50 on the same day.

(b)In light of the above facts, it is difficult to view that there was a defect that does not have to be safe in light of the fact that the cancellation order was received prior to the processing of the purchase order, but the purchase order was processed as it was, as it was, and that there was no other evidence to deem otherwise that the Defendant KOSDAQ erred in operating the computer system.

(C) Determination on the Plaintiff’s assertion

① As the principal agent establishing and operating the KOSDAQ, Defendant KOSDAQ is obligated to secure a series of processes leading to the conclusion of trading orders in the market and the receipt and disposition of orders in the market and manage the market in a normal way so that the trading of stocks in the market can be conducted normally and smoothly. The Plaintiff asserts that, on April 199, the enforcement of the Securities and Exchange Act amended as the main agent of eliminating discrimination with listed companies in the purchase, etc. of treasury stocks on May 199, the implementation of the Securities and Exchange Act amended as of April 199, the implementation of the plan to foster the KOSDAQ market and the improvement of the system, such as mitigation of the public offering system and the implementation of tax support policies on May 199, increase in the number of new registration and the number of transactions in the KOSDAQ market, could have been sufficiently predicted, and thus, the Defendant neglected to take appropriate measures by significantly expanding the treatment capacity of the computerized system so as to meet the expected trading scale.

However, due to the reasons alleged by the Plaintiff, even though the active situation of the registration of the KOSDAQ market and the stock transaction was expected to have been significant due to the reasons stated in the Plaintiff’s legal representative, if the average number of orders per day during the six months from February 199 to August 199 was increased by 12 times or more during the six months from August 199, any person could not have easily predicted, and if the Defendant KOSDAQ extended the electronic computer system capacity up to four times in advance through the preparation work for every three months on June 7, 199 and August 30, 199, then the Defendant KOSDAQ cannot be said to be negligent in doing so.

If the computer system in the KOSDAQ market had been processed immediately without delay without delay, the plaintiff's purchase order was processed immediately without sufficient time to cancel the order. Therefore, there is no causation between the lack of computer system's capacity and the plaintiff's damage.

(2) According to Article 15 of the Regulations on the Regulations on the Operation of the Association Brokerage Market, the plaintiff's attorney may cancel or correct only the portion of the price received pursuant to Article 6 (1) that the transaction was not effected, among the quotations received pursuant to Article 31 (5) of the Regulations, if the cancellation or correction of the price was not effected, from among the quotations received pursuant to Article 31 (5) of the Regulations. According to Article 8 (3) of the Regulations on the Operation of the Association Brokerage Business, a securities company may cancel or correct only the portion of the price received pursuant to Article 6 (1). In this case, the company is dealt with by the order of correction and revocation in the order of receipt. Thus, if the transaction was not concluded until the date of receipt of the order of cancellation, the first trading order shall be cancelled at the time of receipt of the order of cancellation, and since the order of cancellation was deemed to have not been received until the date of receipt of the order of cancellation, the first order of cancellation shall have been cancelled in accordance with the order of cancellation.

However, solely on the fact that the cancellation order of this case was received normally, it is difficult to recognize that the purchase order and the conditions of the purchase order have not been received until the date of receipt, and there is no other evidence to deem that the plaintiff's cancellation order was received earlier than the sale order, as well as that there is no other evidence to deem that the cancellation order of this case was received earlier, and that the cancellation and correction, like the relevant provisions, shall be limited to the case where the transaction was not effected, among the quotation received, and if the transaction was not concluded until the cancellation order was received, the first order shall not be deemed to have been canceled at the time of receipt of the cancellation order, and as recognized earlier, the electronic computer system of the KOSDAQ shall be handled in order at the time of receipt of the cancellation order, and even if the correction or cancellation order was received in the middle, it is designed to be processed in the order of receipt along with other purchase and sale orders, and therefore, it cannot be deemed that there was any error in this regard by the defendant KOSDAQ, on the ground that it did not cancel the original purchase order in accordance

③ At the time of the instant case, the Plaintiff’s legal representative had delayed receipt of trading orders and notification of conclusion to the KOSDAQ market for a considerable period of time, and all information for stock transactions were not available as real-time information. As a result, the Plaintiff’s investors, such as the Plaintiff, have to move to a considerable period of time in order to verify whether the order was received, whether the transaction was constituted, and the details thereof. In addition, as in the instant case, even if the cancellation order was issued without knowing whether the transaction was concluded or not, there was a very unstable situation as to whether the cancellation disposition was conducted immediately, and as such, the Plaintiff suffered considerable mental suffering, the Defendant KOSDAQ is obligated to pay at least KRW 30,00,000 to the Plaintiff as consolation money.

However, as seen earlier, it is difficult to view that there was any tort in connection with the trade contract of this case against Defendant KOSDAQ, and therefore, there is no reason for the preliminary claim.

4. Scope of liability for damages

A. As recognized earlier, as a result of the sale and purchase of the shares of this case, KRW 235,917,350 was withdrawn from the Plaintiff’s account and KRW 201,381,00 was deposited in KRW 201,381,00, the Plaintiff considered the difference as damages of KRW 34,536,350.

B.However, on August 26, 1999, the closing price of telecommunications shares was KRW 21,200,00 on the date following the occurrence of the case, and the closing price was also KRW 22,00 on August 27, 199 as well as KRW 22,160 on August 30, 199, KRW 22,00 on August 31, 199, and KRW 21,60 on August 31, 199, and thereafter, the share price fell from KRW 21,450 on the highest price to KRW 20,150 on the highest price until the plaintiff disposes of the shares (Evidence evidence evidence No. 8 and evidence No. 9).

In light of the principle of good faith and the principle of fair compensation system for damages, the Plaintiff is also obligated to make efforts to prevent or reduce the expansion of damages in light of the principle of good faith and the ideology of the compensation system for damages. If the Plaintiff refused to accept the shares purchased by mistake, the Defendant Hyundai Securities could appropriately sell the said shares and reduce losses by taking into account the market situation until the third day from the transaction day from the transaction day, which is the time limit for the settlement of the attempted amount. However, the Plaintiff’s own account was negligent by expanding the disposal of the said shares by September 14, 199, notwithstanding the continuous decline of the share price.

Considering the Plaintiff’s negligence related to the expansion of the above damages, it is reasonable to reduce 50% of the amount of damages that Defendant Hyundai Securities is liable for.

5. Conclusion

Thus, the defendant Hyundai Securities is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount of 17,268,175 won (34,536,350 won x 50/1000) and the amount of damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from August 25, 1999 to October 31, 200, which is the sentencing date, and 25% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the full payment date. Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant Hyundai Securities is accepted within the above recognition scope as reasonable, and all claims against the defendant Hyundai Securities and their remaining claims against the defendant Hyundai Securities are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.