[2] The case denying the employer's liability on the ground that unfair trade practices, such as manipulation of prices by employees of a securities company, etc., were known to the effect that such unfair trade practices do not constitute the conduct of business of a securities company, in case where the customer purchases, after being solicited by employees of another securities company to purchase certain stock prices in accordance with the market manipulation

[2] The case denying the employer's liability of a securities company on the ground that the customer was aware that an unfair conduct such as price manipulation by the employees of the securities company was not an act of performing his duties, and that the customer was aware of the fact that the price of the stocks will change due to the market manipulation by other employees of the securities company, and that the customer suffered damages after purchasing and selling the stocks for the purpose of his investment return

The court below acknowledged that the plaintiffs' claim against the defendant 1 corporation (hereinafter referred to as "defendant 1 corporation") is liable for employers due to unfair trade practices, such as the defendant 2's price manipulation, etc., which is his employee, and the plaintiffs' purchase of the above shares was recommended by the defendant 2 to purchase the above shares due to the market manipulation of the defendant 3 who works for the defendant 2 who purchased the above shares, and it was decided that the above shares were purchased and the defendant 2 attempted to conduct unfair trade practices such as the price manipulation, etc., for their investment profits, even though he knew that such unfair trade practices such as the above price manipulation do not constitute the act of performing duties of the defendant 1 corporation, which is the employer, and therefore, the court below held that the plaintiffs cannot be liable for employers against the defendant 1 corporation, since such fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as otherwise alleged in the grounds for appeal, as otherwise alleged in the grounds for appeal, or in the ground for appeal.

2. Article 106 (1) of the former Securities and Exchange Act (amended by Act No. 5254 of Jan. 13, 1997) which provides for liability for damages caused by unfair trade practices, such as manipulation of market prices, does not mean that the purpose of prohibiting offsetting of negligence is, on the other hand, the fact finding of comparative negligence or setting its ratio belongs to the exclusive authority of the fact-finding court unless it is deemed that it is remarkably unreasonable in light of the principle of equity. The court below's finding of the degree of negligence by the plaintiffs as 50% in light of the fact-finding, is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles

3. The court below held that the plaintiffs' claim for damages against the defendant 2 was extinguished by prescription since the plaintiffs knew that there was unfair trade practices, such as manipulation of market prices, when the plaintiffs terminated all of the above shares, the extinctive prescription should run from that time. There is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as alleged in the grounds of appeal, and the plaintiffs' submission of a written petition to the Securities Supervisory Board does not constitute a claim for interruption of prescription. Accordingly, this part of the grounds of appeal

4. Therefore, all appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Cho Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)