The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A. In a case where a person who acquired or disposed of stocks claims compensation for damages incurred by a stock-listed corporation due to a false description in the business report, etc. on grounds of Article 162 of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (hereinafter “Capital Markets Act”), the person who acquired or disposed of the stocks does not have to prove the existence of causation between the false description in the business report and the occurrence of damages pursuant to Article 162(4) of the Capital Markets Act. In order to exempt the stock-listed corporation from liability, the person must prove

In addition, it is possible to prove that the absence of a causal relationship between damage" under Article 162(4) of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act directly or indirectly caused damage by other factors than the relevant fraudulent disclosure, etc., such as the relevant fraudulent disclosure, etc., which directly or indirectly affected the occurrence of damage, by proving that the damage occurred in whole or in part by other factors other than the illegal act.

(2) In light of the legislative intent of Article 162(3) of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, the legislative intent of Article 162(3) is to estimate the expected return and normal share price when it is assumed that a specific case had not occurred on the basis of the data prior to the occurrence of a specific case. In such cases, the method of analyzing whether the specific case has a statistical meaning of impact on the share price by using the presumption of excess return, which is the difference between the expected return of profit and the actual return of profit as observed in the market, may be used. However, in light of the legislative intent of Article 162(3) of the said Act, the presumption of damages in terms of the protection of investors.