The costs of appeal are assessed against each appellant.

1. As to the Defendant’s first ground of appeal

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, the proof of “non-existence of causation of damage” under Article 162(4) of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act is possible by means of proving that an illegal act, such as the pertinent false disclosure in question, directly or indirectly, did not have any effect on the occurrence of damage, or by any other factor other than the pertinent false disclosure in question, such as the pertinent false disclosure in question, has all or part of damage.

In such a case, the research method of the case may be used to estimate the expected return and normal price when it is assumed that a specific case did not occur on the basis of the data before the occurrence of the specific case, and to analyze whether the specific case has a statistically significant impact on the share price by using the presumption value of excess return, which is the difference between the expected return and the actual return rate observed in the market. However, in light of the legislative intent of Article 162(3) of the Capital Markets Act, which provides for presumption of damages in terms of investor protection, the price of the shares purchased after the illegal act, such as false disclosure, has decreased.