[2] In a case where the liability limitation ratio of the accounting corporation Eul, which failed to disclose the act of subdivision due to the poor accounting audit of the financial statements as an auditor of the savings bank Gap, was at issue, the case holding that the court below's determination of the liability limitation amount of the accounting corporation Eul to the same 50% as the officers and employees of the savings bank Gap who committed an intentional act, such as embezzlement, non-performing loans, and division of food, is

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the facts and circumstances as stated in the judgment, and determined that the defendant violated the duty of care required for the auditor by preparing the audit report of this case without finding out the fact of division accounting of the Japanese Savings Bank (hereinafter referred to as the " Japanese Savings Bank") by determining the existence of the small loan claims of the Japanese Savings Bank in an inappropriate manner.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is acceptable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the limitation of the scope of external audit by the accounting firm, thereby failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations regarding the breach

2. As to the third ground for appeal

The fact-finding or the ratio of comparative negligence or limitation of liability in a tort compensation case is, in principle, belonging to the exclusive authority of the fact-finding court. However, in cases where it is deemed that it is considerably unreasonable in light of the principle of equity, it is not allowed as it is illegal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Da32821, Nov. 27, 1992; 201Da68357, Nov. 27, 2014).

The lower court, taking into account all the circumstances, such as the fact that it is difficult to eliminate the possibility that various factors such as the management performance or external market situation of the Japanese Savings Bank have influenced the stock price decline of the Japanese Savings Bank, limited the amount of damages suffered by the Plaintiff to 50% of the amount of damages identical to Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 of the lower court, who actively participated in the act of spraying by intentionally understating the bad debt allowances and in preparing and publicly announcing a false business report, etc. based thereon.

However, even if the defendant, who is an auditor of the Japanese Savings Bank, is liable for negligence in failure to disclose an accounting audit of the financial statements, it cannot be deemed that there is a difference in the grounds and nature of the occurrence and the responsibility of the co-defendant 1 of the original judgment and the co-defendant 2 of the original judgment who committed an intentional act, such as embezzlement, non-performing loan, and division of food, etc., and that there is no possibility that the criminal act such as embezzlement and non-performing loan, etc. committed continuously after the defendant's accounting audit would contribute to the expansion of the damages suffered by the plaintiffs. However, if the defendant is liable for the partial damages, it cannot be said that the damage would result in a violation of the ideology of the damage compensation system, which is fair and reasonable distribution of the damages, even if considering the aspects of the victim's two protection. Accordingly, the fact that the court below set the defendant's limited liability amount to 50% same as the co-defendant 1 of the original judgment, etc., as stated in its reasoning,

In conclusion, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the grounds for limitation of liability and calculation of its percentage, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and the ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the judgment below against the defendant among the judgment below by the assent of all participating Justices is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination as per Disposition.

Justices Kwon Soon-il (Presiding Justice)