Attached Forms 1-1 and 1-2 (Attorneys Kim Sung-hee et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

The bankruptcy trustee of the Solomon Savings Bank and three others (Law Firm Grandmark et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

September 2, 2016

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2012Gahap70222 Decided January 30, 2015

1. A. At the request of the plaintiffs listed in attached Form 1-1 for an exchange change in the trial, the plaintiffs' bankruptcy claims against Solomon Savings Bank Co., Ltd. listed in attached Form 1-1 against the plaintiffs' bankrupts, Solomon Savings Bank, shall be confirmed that the amount listed in attached Form 2 in the corresponding sequence

B. After filing an appeal between the plaintiffs as shown in attached Table 1-1 and the bankruptcy trustee of Solomon Savings Bank, Solomon Savings Bank, Inc., the bankruptcy trustee of Solomon Savings Bank, the above defendant shall bear the costs of appeal.

2. (a) Upon a request made by the Plaintiffs (excluding Plaintiffs 99, 107) in attached Form 1-2 in exchange for changes in the trial, bankruptcy claims against the bankrupt, Solomon Savings Bank listed in attached Form 1-2 (excluding Plaintiffs 99, 107) shall be confirmed that the amount of money listed in the corresponding column of attached Form 2 is each one.

B. Attached 1-2 (excluding Plaintiffs 99, 107) shall be dismissed, respectively, against the bankruptcy trustee of Solomon Savings Bank, Solomon Savings Bank, Solomon Savings Bank, the bankruptcy trustee of Solomon Savings Bank, the defendant corporation taking over the lawsuit of Solomon Savings Bank.

C. Attached 1-2 (excluding Plaintiffs 99, 107) and Defendant Solomon Savings Bank’s bankruptcy trustee in Solomon Savings Bank, the bankruptcy trustee in Solomon Savings Bank, the 1/2 of the litigation costs after filing an appeal, shall be borne by the Plaintiffs listed in Attached 1-2 (excluding Plaintiffs 9, 107) and the remainder shall be borne by the said Defendant.

3. A. The claim against the trustee in bankruptcy of Solomon Savings Bank, Solomon Savings Bank, Solomon Savings Bank, which is the litigation taking over of the defendant corporation Solomon Savings Bank, is dismissed, respectively.

B. The costs of the lawsuit incurred after the appeal between the plaintiff 99 and the plaintiff 107 and the bankruptcy trustee of Solomon Savings Bank, the bankrupt corporation, the Solomon Savings Bank, the bankruptcy trustee of Solomon Savings Bank, is assessed against the plaintiff 9 and 107.

4. A. The part of the judgment of the court of the first instance on the plaintiffs' claim against the defendant Jin-jin Accounting Corporation against the plaintiffs, which orders payment under the below, shall be revoked, respectively.

The defendant Jin-jin Accounting Corporation shall pay to the Solomon Savings Bank and each of the plaintiffs the amount of money listed in the No. 3 of Attached Table 3 with 5% per annum from April 30, 2013 to October 21, 2016, and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

B. The plaintiffs' remaining appeals against the defendant Jinjin Accounting Corporation are dismissed, respectively.

C. 2/3 of the total litigation cost incurred between the plaintiffs and the defendant Ansan Accounting Corporation shall be borne by the plaintiffs, and the remainder shall be borne by the defendant Ansan Accounting Corporation.

D. The above paragraph (a) above may be provisionally executed for the part ordering payment of the money.

5. A. The plaintiffs' appeals against the defendant Financial Supervisory Service are all dismissed.

B. The plaintiffs' appeal costs against the defendant Financial Supervisory Service are assessed against the plaintiffs.

6. A. The plaintiffs' appeals against the defendant Republic of Korea are all dismissed.

B. The plaintiffs' appeal costs against Defendant Republic of Korea are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Attached 1-1 Plaintiffs

A. As to the bankruptcy trustee of the Solomon Savings Bank (hereinafter “Defendant Deposit Insurance Corporation”), the litigation taking over the Solomon Savings Bank (hereinafter “Defendant Deposit Insurance Corporation”)

In attached Form 1-1, the plaintiffs' bankruptcy claim against Solomon Savings Bank is confirmed to be the amount indicated in the corresponding column of the claim amount in attached Form 2 (the claim was exchangedly changed to seek the confirmation of bankruptcy claim in the first instance trial while seeking the payment of damages in the first instance trial).

B. As to Defendant Jinjin Accounting Corporation, Financial Supervisory Service, and Korea

Defendant Jin-jin Accounting Corporation, the Financial Supervisory Service, and the Republic of Korea shall pay to each of the plaintiffs listed in [Attachment 1-1] of Solomon Savings Bank and Solomon Savings Bank, 5% per annum from April 30, 2013 to the date judgment is rendered, and 15% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment (the amount of claim was reduced in the trial).

2. Attached 1-2 Plaintiffs

A. As to Defendant Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation

1) Attached 1-2 Nos. 12, 19, 24, 27, 28, 31, 35, 36, 39, 41, 50, 52, 55, 59, 60, 71, 74, 78, 83, 84, 85, 87, 89, 91, 92, 93, 99, 100, 103, 112, 115, 119, 123, 124, 125, 128, 132, and 133 of the plaintiffs' bankrupt Solomon Savings Bank were entitled to claim damages from the court of the first instance on September 29, 209 for the exchange of the amount in column 2 of the corresponding claim amount and the amount of damages from the court of first instance on September 25, 2009.

2) Attached 1-2 Nos. 2, 6, 7, 10, 11, 23, 25, 42, 43, 48, 53, 54, 58, 63, 72, 77, 80, 94, 97, 101, 107, 111, 126, and 130 of the plaintiffs' bankruptcy claims against Solomon Savings Bank in attached Form 1-2, 2, 6, 7, 10, 11, 23, 42, 43, 53, 54, 54, 58, 72, 73, 87, 94, 97, 97, 107, 111, 126, and 130 of the amount of damages claim in attached Form 2, the amount of which is 5% per annum from March 19 to August 29, 2012012.

3) Attached 1-2 Nos. 17, 56, 98, 109, and 118 of the plaintiffs' bankruptcy claims against Solomon Savings Bank, Solomon Savings Bank, Inc., shall be confirmed to be the amount of damages in accordance with the annual rate of 5% from September 29, 2009 to August 29, 2012, each of the amounts listed in the corresponding column of the Claim Amount (1,00,000 won) and the amount calculated by applying the annual rate of 5% from September 29, 2009 to August 29, 2012, and the remaining amount of 5% from March 19, 2010 to August 29, 2012 (the first instance court changed to seek the confirmation of bankruptcy claims in the previous trial).

4) The Plaintiff’s bankruptcy claim against Solomon Savings Bank, Solomon Savings Bank listed in [Attachment 1-2] Nos. 134 against the Plaintiff’s bankrupt shall be the amount indicated in the corresponding column of Claim Amount of Attached Table 2 (22,80,000) and the amount calculated by the annual rate of 5% from September 29, 2009 to August 29, 2012 with respect to the amount of 6,60,000 won, and the amount calculated by the annual rate of 5% from March 19, 2010 to August 29, 2012 with respect to the remainder of 16,200,000 won (the first instance court sought the payment of damages under the first instance court and exchanged the claim with a claim seeking the confirmation of damages from the trial).

B. As to Defendant Jinjin Accounting Corporation, Financial Supervisory Service, and Korea

1) The defendant Anjin Accounting Corporation, the Financial Supervisory Service, and the Republic of Korea served the Solomon Savings Bank and the Solomon Savings Bank Co., Ltd. 12, 19, 24, 27, 28, 31, 35, 36, 39, 41, 50, 52, 55, 59, 60, 71, 74, 78, 83, 84, 85, 87, 89, 91, 92, 93, 99, 99, 100, 103, 112, 115, 119, 123, 125, 128, 132, and 133 of each of the plaintiffs' claims in attached Form 2, from the next day of the judgment of the court of first instance to the fifth day of the first instance to the fifth day of the first instance of the claim.

2) The defendant Anjin Accounting Corporation, the Financial Supervisory Service, and the Republic of Korea respectively with the Solomon Savings Bank Nos. 1-2, 2, 6, 7, 10, 11, 23, 25, 42, 43, 48, 53, 54, 58, 63, 72, 73, 77, 80, 94, 97, 101, 107, 111, 126, and 130 each of the amounts listed in the corresponding column of Attached Form 2 of Attached Table 2 to the plaintiffs, and with respect to those amounts, 5% per annum from March 19, 2010 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint, and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment (the purport of the claim was reduced from the trial).

3) Defendant Ansan Accounting Corporation, the Financial Supervisory Service, and the Republic of Korea pay to the Plaintiffs listed in [Attachment 1-2] Nos. 17, 56, 98, 109, and 118 of Solomon Savings Bank and [Attachment 1-2] 17, 56, 98, 109, and 118 of each amount listed in [Attachment 2] No. 2 for KRW 500,000 from September 29, 2009; for KRW 500,000 from March 19, 2010 until the delivery date of a copy of each complaint; and for KRW 50,000 from the next day to the date of full payment, 5% per annum per annum from the next day to the date of full payment (the claim was reduced in the trial).

4) Defendant Ansan Accounting Corporation, the Financial Supervisory Service, and the Republic of Korea shall pay to the Plaintiff the money listed in [Attachment 1-2] Nos. 1-2 of [Attachment 2] and the amount listed in [Attachment 2] No. 134 to the Plaintiff as to KRW 6,600,000 from September 29, 2009; the remainder of KRW 16,200,000 from March 19, 2010 to the date of delivery of a copy of a complaint; and KRW 5% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment (the amount of claim has been reduced in the trial).

The judgment of the first instance is revoked and the same as the statement in the purport of the claim is sought (However, as the plaintiffs sought payment of damages against the defendant Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation in the first instance trial and seek confirmation of the bankruptcy claim in the first instance trial, the claim for payment of damages has been changed in exchange, and the part regarding the plaintiffs' claim against the defendant Deposit Insurance Corporation in the first instance judgment has already become invalid).

1. Facts of recognition;

(a) Acquisition of shares of Solomon Savings Bank Solomon Private Equity Funds;

1) On May 22, 2007, Solomon Savings Bank (Ulomon Savings Bank, Solomon Savings Bank, hereinafter “ Solomon Savings Bank”) and KTB Asset Management Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “KTB Asset Management”) established Solomon KB private equity fund (hereinafter “ SolomonKB private equity investment”) and held office as a general partner and a joint representative member (Evidence No. 46, 54).

2) On June 13, 2007, the Solomon KTB private equity investment purchased 16,519,999 shares, which are 51.62% of the total number of shares issued by KGI Securities Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “KGI Securities”) from Korea Liber, etc. (Evidence Nos. 46, B, and 4).

3) On July 10, 2007, SolomonK TB private equity investment established an EM&B partnership primary liability company (hereinafter “SM&&A partnership”), and acquired the entire equity interest. On July 18, 2007, the purchaser status of the share sales contract as stated in the above paragraph (2) was transferred to SM&&A partnership (Evidence A or 46).

4) On July 25, 2007, Solomon Savings Bank et al. invested in SolomonKB private equity investment in solomonKB equity investment with capital of KRW 1,84.3 billion, and KTB asset management decided to retire from general partners and joint representative employees (Evidence A or No. 46, 47, 55).

① Acquisition of shares by Solomon Savings Bank of 18 billion won (=18 billion won/1,84.3 billion won; hereinafter “instant Solomon Private Equity Investment Equity Holdings”) by investing 18 billion won (with limited liability)

② Acquisition of shares of 5.37% (=9.9 billion won/184.3 billion won) by investing 9.9 billion won in Busan Solomon Savings Bank, a company affiliated with Solomon Savings Bank, which is an affiliated company of Busan (with limited liability)

③ Acquisition of shares 2.17% (i.e., 4 billion won/184.3 billion won) by investing 4 billion won in Ho Nam Solomon Savings Bank, Inc., an affiliated company of the Solomon Savings Bank (with limited liability)

④ Acquisition of shares by 0.76% (=1.40 billion won/184.3 billion won) by investing 1.46 billion won in company Gyeonggi-do Mutual Savings Bank, which is an affiliated company of the Solomon Savings Bank (with limited liability)

(5) The acquisition of 81.93% of equity interest (=151 billion won/1,84.3 billion won) by investing KRW 151 billion in the Government Employees Pension Corporation, Green Fire and Marine Insurance Corporation, the Science and Technology Mutual Aid Association, the Sungwon Industrial Development Corporation, the Central Industrial Development Corporation, and the Stock Company (with limited liability)

5) On July 26, 2007, the Solomon Savings Bank applied to the Financial Supervisory Commission for the approval under Article 24(1)2 of the Act on the Structural Improvement of the Financial Industry (Evidence A or 46) with respect to the acquisition of shares in Solomon private equity in the instant case.

본문내 포함된 표 ◆ 구 「금융산업의 구조개선에 관한 법률」(2008. 2. 29. 법률 제10066호로 개정되기 전의 것) ○ 제24조(다른 회사의 주식소유한도) ① 금융기관 및 그 금융기관과 같은 기업집단에 속하는 금융기관(이하 "동일계열 금융기관"이라 한다)은 다음 각 호의 1의 행위를 하고자 할 때에는 대통령령이 정하는 기준에 따라 미리 금융감독위원회의 승인을 얻어야 한다. (단서 생략) 2. 다른 회사의 의결권 있는 발행주식 총수의 100분의 5 이상을 소유하고 동일계열 금융기관 또는 동일계열 금융기관이 속하는 기업집단이 당해 회사를 사실상 지배하는 것으로 인정되는 경우로서 대통령령이 정하는 경우 ◆ 구 「금융감독기구의 설치 등에 관한 법률」(2008. 2. 29. 법률 제8863호로 「금융위원회의 설치 등에 관한 법률」로 개정되기 전의 것) ○ 제3조(금융감독위원회의 설치 및 지위) ① 금융감독업무를 수행하게 하기 위하여 국무총리소속하에 금융감독위원회를 둔다. ○ 제24조(금융감독원의 설립) ① 금융감독위원회 또는 증권선물위원회의 지시를 받아 금융기관에 대한 검사·감독업무 등을 수행하기 위하여 금융감독원을 설립한다.

6) On November 2007, KTB Asset Management retired from the general partner and joint representative partner of SolomonKB private equity investment, and accordingly, the Solomon Savings Bank was a sole general partner and representative member, and the trade name of SolomonKB private equity investment was changed to Solomon Private Equity Fund (hereinafter “ Solomon Private Equity Investment”) around that time (AB No. 1 and 46).

7) The Defendant Financial Supervisory Service, at the direction of the Financial Supervisory Commission, conducted an examination as to whether to approve the acquisition of shares of Solomon Savings Bank in this case, and around January 2008, the Defendant Financial Supervisory Service, “The acquisition of shares of Solomon Savings Bank in Solomon Savings Bank shall invest 18 billion won or less, which shall not exceed 10/100 of its equity capital, to acquire 9.77% of its equity interest within 10/100 of solomon private equity investment shares, and thus it is reasonable to approve it since it does not violate Article 18-2 subparag. 1 of the Mutual Savings Banks Act and Article 30(1)4 of the Regulations on the Supervision of Mutual Savings Banks Business,” and submitted a written opinion to the Financial Supervisory Commission (hereinafter “this case’s opinion”). At the time, the Defendant did not examine whether Solomon Savings Bank’s acquisition of shares of Solomon Savings Savings Bank in this case violates Article 30(1)3 of the Regulations on the Supervision of Business of Mutual Savings Bank.

본문내 포함된 표 ◆ 구 「상호저축은행법」(2008. 2. 29. 법률 제8863호로 개정되기 전의 것) ○ 제18조의2(금지업무) 상호저축은행은 다음 각 호의 행위를 하여서는 아니 된다. 1. 자기자본을 초과하는 유가증권(금융감독위원회가 정하는 것을 제외한다)에 대한 투자. 이 경우 금융감독위원회는 상호저축은행의 건전한 경영을 위하여 필요한 범위 내에서 유가증권의 종류별로 투자한도를 따로 정할 수 있다. ◆ 구 「상호저축은행업 감독규정」(2008. 2. 27. 금융감독위원회 공고 제2008-8호로 개정되기 전의 것) ○ 제30조(유가증권 보유의 제한) ① 상호저축은행은 법 제18조의2 제1호의 규정에 의하여 유가증권(괄호 부분 생략)을 매입·보유하는 경우 다음 각 호의 한도를 준수하여야 한다. 3. 상호저축은행의 동일계열기업 주식 및 회사채는 자기자본의 100분의 5 이내 4. 비상장 주식 및 회사채는 자기자본의 100분의 10 이내 및 주식은 당해 회사 발행주식 총수의 100분의 10 이내. (단서 생략)

8) On February 1, 2008, the Financial Supervisory Commission approved the acquisition of equity investment in the Solomon Savings Bank of Solomon Savings (Evidence Nos. 20, 55, Na, 4).

9) On February 20, 2008, Solomon Savings Bank invested in Solomon Private Equity Investment and acquired the shares of Solomon private equity investment in this case. Solomon Private Equity Investment, on February 20, 2008, additionally invested in SM&A partnership and increased SM&A partnership's capital to KRW 164.38 million. SM&&A acquired 16,519,999 shares, which is 51.62% of total number of the shares issued by KGI on February 28, 2008, and the KGI changed its name into Solomon Investment Securities Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as " Solomon Investment Securities").

10) Nonparty 1, who is the major shareholder of the Solomon Savings Bank, worked as the representative director of the Solomon Savings Bank from March 20, 2003 to May 6, 2012 (Evidence A or 2).

(b) Preparation of the 38-year financial statements of the Solomon Savings Bank;

1) Around July 2009, the Solomon Savings Bank prepared the consolidated financial statements, including income statements and balance sheets (as of June 30, 2009) on the 38 business years (from July 1, 2008 to June 30, 2009) (as of June 30, 2009) and consolidated income statements (as of June 30, 2009) (hereinafter “instant financial statements”), including consolidated income statements and consolidated balance sheets (as of June 30, 2009), and entered profits, assets, liabilities, capital ratio (i.e., assets and liabilities) and equity capital ratio (hereinafter “equity capital ratio”) in the instant financial statements as follows (hereinafter “equity capital ratio”).

① The operating expenses, including the bad debt depreciation cost of KRW 104,5,745,244, were stated as KRW 473,377,095,736, and the operating losses were stated as KRW 26,129,376,294, and the net losses were stated as KRW 17,841,038;

893 won was written.

② The assets included in KRW 4,608,920,346,789, including KRW 3,533,678,938,042.

③ The liability was stated as KRW 4,356,376,873,755, including deposit liability 4,067,876,574,795.

(4) The earned surplus was stated as 252,543,473,034 won, including 134,753,363,607 won.

⑤ The equity capital ratio was calculated as 9.82% by including solomon private equity investment, SM&A partnership, and solomon equity investment securities in a subsidiary of Solomon Savings Bank (Evidence A or 9).

(2) A mutual savings bank shall classify loan claims pursuant to Article 22-2 of the former Mutual Savings Banks Act (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 10175, Mar. 22, 2010); Article 11-3 (2) and (3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Mutual Savings Banks Act (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 22401, Sep. 20, 2010); Articles 36 through 39 of the former Regulations on Supervision of Business of Mutual Savings Banks (Amended by Act No. 2010-36, Sept. 24, 2010); Article 20 (1) and attached Table 2 of the former Regulations on the Supervision of Business of Mutual Savings Banks (Amended by Act No. 20175, Dec. 22, 2011); Article 20 (2) of the former Mutual Savings Banks Act (Amended by Act No. 22401, Sep. 22, 2010); Article 15) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Mutual Savings Banks Act;

(4) Credit extended to a person who is registered with a centralized credit information collection agency pursuant to Article 17 of the Use and Protection of Credit Information Act (Provided, That it shall be classified as the relevant ground for classification) for whom the amount of loss due to the latest three consecutive years - credit extended to the customer whose total amount of capital due to the latest settlement of accounts exceeds annual sales - (2) credit extended to the customer whose amount of capital due to the suspension of credit for more than three months is classified as "amount of credit for which the total amount of credit extended to the customer requiring attention" due to the regulations on financial transactions, credit standing, etc. - total amount of credit extended to the customer whose amount of credit unrecied for more than six months is determined as "amount of credit unrecied for more than six months," the total amount of credit extended to the customer who has been registered with the centralized credit information collection agency pursuant to Article 17 of the Credit Information Use and Protection Act, whichever is possible for more than six months due to unrecied gross amount of credit extended to the customer;

(15) Solomon Savings Bank prepared the financial statements of this case, 41,81,97,982 won (i) plus 15,308,00,000 won + 3,705,000 won + 345,000,000 + 46,13,648 won + 318,681,685,60 + 380,60 won + 380,625,79,00 won + 380,625,00 won + 380,625,00 won + 1,76,000 won + 97,79,740,79,740,79,2000 + 1,76,79,000 won + 1,76,000 won + 2,340,005,005,75,297,205,79.

① Claim of KRW 47.2 billion in Central Construction Co., Ltd. (=12 billion +8 billion + +26.2 billion +1 billion) loans

The Central Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Central Construction”) failed to repay the total amount of loans to Solomon Savings Bank on February 12, 2009, which is due to the aggravation of its financial status due to low-quality sales of newly-built apartment units due to the establishment of housing competitions, the decrease of sales and profits therefrom, and the increase in liabilities (=12 billion won +8 billion won). However, on February 12, 2009, Solomon Savings Bank was provided with investment shares of Solomon Private Equity Investment that are not worth as security for the above 20 billion won loan loans from the Central Construction, but did not receive any security necessary for the collection of the above loan loans (i.e.,, the Defendant Ansan Accounting Corporation assessed the above 20 billion won loan loans of KRW 20 billion as KRW 3.5 billion, and assessed the bad debt allowances of KRW 1.5 billion as KRW 1.5 billion (i.e., the debt allowances of KRW 200 billion).

As of June 30, 2009, the central construction did not pay the above 20 billion won loan obligation amounting to 4 months, the remaining 27.2 billion won loan obligation amounting to the central construction (=26.2 billion won +1 billion won) should be classified to below the requisite principle and at least 54,000 won, which is 2% of the amount of credit amount, should be set as the bad debt allowance, as the bad debt allowance. However, 136,00,000 won, which is 0.5% of the amount of credit, should be classified as the ordinary law, was set as the bad debt allowance (=54,000,000-136,000,000 won).

② Loan claims of S.C. 19,000,000,000 won

E. E.C. is a company with a special relationship under Article 37(1)3 of the Mutual Savings Banks Act with Nonparty 1, the representative director, who is the major shareholder of the Solomon Savings Bank, and Article 37(1)3 of the Mutual Savings Banks Act. Therefore, E.S. loans are loans made in violation of Article 37(1) of the Mutual Savings Banks Act. Therefore, E.S. loans are loans made

00 won loan claim amounting to 3,80,000,000 won or more which is 20% of the amount of claim as bad debts allowance. The bad debts allowance amounting to 95,00,000 won, which is 0.5% of the amount of claim, was set up as bad debts allowance amounting to 3,705,00,000 won (=3,800,000,000 -95,000,000 won). (A or 2,31,36, 37, and evidence No. 380).

본문내 포함된 표 ◆ 구 「상호저축은행법」(2010. 3. 22. 법률 제10175호로 개정되기 전의 것) ○ 제37조(대주주 등에 대한 신용공여의 금지) ① 상호저축은행은 다음 각 호의 어느 하나에 해당하는 자(이하 "대주주 등"이라 한다)에 대하여 신용공여를 하거나 가지급금을 지급하지 못하며, 대주주 등은 상호저축은행으로부터 신용공여를 받거나 가지급금을 받지 못한다. (단서 생략) 1. 대주주(대통령령으로 정하는 주주를 포함한다) 2. 상호저축은행의 임원·직원 3. 제1호·제2호의 자 또는 상호저축은행과 대통령령이 정하는 친족 또는 특수한 관계에 있는 자

(3) Loans extended to 23,000,000,000

As of June 30, 2009, Dong Yangyang-si Co., Ltd. suffered a loss for three consecutive fiscal years, it is necessary to set up not less than 460,000,000 won loan claims of KRW 23,000,000, which are classified as the도요 Act, as the bad debt allowance of KRW 23,000,000, which is 115,000,000, which is 0.5% of the amount of credit, as the bad debt allowance of KRW 345,00,000 (=460,000,000-115,00,000,00).

(4) Claims of 6,151,153,070 won in spatial mining Co., Ltd.

As of June 30, 2009, spatial plea bargaining Co., Ltd. did not pay 6,151,153,070 won loans as of June 30, 2009 in arrears for four months, it is necessary to classify the above loan loans below the required principle and set up at least 123,023,061 won, which is 2% of the amount of the loan, as the bad debts allowance. The amount of KRW 76,889,413, which is 1.25% of the amount of the loan, is classified as the normal law and was set up as the bad debts allowance (=123,023,061 won-76,89,413 won).

(5) Loans receivable amounting to KRW 870,000,000, Alleymaa Co., Ltd.

As of June 30, 200, 31 months, AEnmon Savings Bank failed to pay a loan amount of KRW 870,000,000 as of June 30, 2009, and it did not discover any assets of AEEina in the manner more than one year has passed since it was classified the above loan obligations as the Recovery Clause, so the above loan obligations shall be divided as the "Presumption Loss Act" and 870,000,000 won, which is 100% of the amount of the loan shall be set as the allowance for bad debts. For 194,580,000 won, 4,753,400 won, which is 23% of the amount of the loan as the bad debts allowance, was set up as the remaining 675,420,000 won, and as the remaining 5,506,500,000 won, the amount of the loan obligations shall be set up as the bad debts allowance amount (i.e., 30608,70608,70008

6. Loans extended to 8,642,532,560 won in Korea

As of June 30, 2009, Korea has failed to pay 15 months loans of KRW 8,642,532,560 as of June 30, 2009, and Solomon Savings Bank did not discover our properties with the lapse of one year or more after it was classified as the Recovery Clause, so the above loans of KRW 8,642,532,560, which are 100% of the amount of the loans, should be classified as the "Presumption Loss Act" and set up as the allowance for bad debts. 3,509,000, KRW 807,070,000, which is 23% of the amount of the loans as the bad debts allowance of KRW 5,133,532,560, the remaining amount of the loans of KRW 3,850,149,420, or KRW 308,308,405,360,530,539,57,406,57,500

7. Loan claims of 2,030,000,000

Since Hart Construction Co., Ltd closed its business as of June 30, 2009, it is necessary to classify the above loan claims below 20% of the credit amount as the bad debts allowance, and set up at least 406,00,000 won which is 20% of the credit amount as the bad debts allowance. However, 25,375,00 won which is 1.25% of the credit amount as the bad debts allowance was set up as the bad debts allowance (=406,000,000-25,375,00 won) was less than the bad debts allowance (Evidence 60, 390, 1.25% of the credit amount).

(8) Loan claims in KRW 10,768,675,883 against a company for housing construction.

As of June 30, 2009, Lao Housing Construction Co., Ltd. was fully locked with paid-in capital as of June 30, 2009, more than annual sales, and more than 1,153,735,176 won, which is 20% of the amount of credit, shall be classified as the High Court Act, and at least 2,153,735,176 won, which is 20% of the amount of credit, shall be set as the allowance for bad debts. However, it shall be classified as the required principle, and 376,903,656 won, which is 3.5% of the amount of credit, as the bad debts allowance for bad debts (=2,776,831,520 won, i.e., 2,153,73

6wons less (Evidence A or evidence 38) 18, A or 39.

(9) Loans against the commercial glass set forth in 15,000,000,000

As of Jun. 30, 2009, the commercial cooking Co., Ltd., Ltd., as of June 30, 2009, fully locked paid-in capital, more than annual sales, and over 1,200,000 won borrowed from the above loan liabilities in arrears for 5 months, the above loan obligations should be classified as the High Court Act, and at least 3,00,000 won, which is 20% of the credit amount, should be set up as the allowance for bad debts. However, it is classified as the Commercial Code, and 660,000,000 won (=3,00,000,000 won-60,000-60,000,000,000 won as bad debts for bad debts for bad debts for 4.4% of the credit amount (Evidence No. 38, 18, A or 39 evidence).

(10) Loan claims in New York Co., Ltd. 3,000,000,000

As of June 30, 2009, New Ghana Co., Ltd. registered the arrears amounting to at least 15,000,000 won with a centralized credit collection agency for at least six months as a bad credit company held by it, and thus, at least 6,00,000 won, which is at least 20% of the amount of credit, should be classified under the High Court Act, as the bad credit allowance for bad credit. However, the bad credit allowance was set at KRW 105,00,000, which is at least 3.5% of the amount of credit, as the bad credit allowance for bad credit (i.e., 6,00,000,000-105,000,000,000 won (Evidence or evidence 38, 30,000,000,000).

(11) Loans in the amount of KRW 9,227,655,775 in relation to Abacoina

As of June 30, 2009, IMF was registered as a credit bad company holding at least 15,00,000 won with a centralized credit collection agency as of June 30, 2009, at least six months, at least KRW 1,845,531,155, which is 20% of the credit amount as the bad credit amount, should be classified under the High Court Act, and at least KRW 1,845,531,155, which is 10% of the credit amount as the bad credit allowance. However, the amount of KRW 922,765,578, which is 10% of the credit amount as the bad credit allowance was classified under the Essentialism Act, was set up as the bad credit allowance for bad credit (i.e., KRW 1,845,531, 155 won, KRW 922,765,578,92).

(12) Loans in the amount of 8,000,000,000

Since the development of typ investment in other companies closed as of June 30, 2009, it is necessary to classify the above loan claims below the fixed amount of the loan and set up not less than KRW 1,600,000,000, which is 20% of the amount of the loan as the bad debts allowance. The bad debts allowance is less than KRW 1,320,000,000 (=60,000,000-280,000), which is 1,320,000,000, which is the bad debts allowance for bad debts, was set up (Evidence evidence 61, A or 39).

(13) Loans in KRW 9,650,272,769 for the Housing Construction of Beneficiary Co., Ltd.

As of June 30, 2009, the Housing Construction Co., Ltd. was registered as a credit-free business entity with arrears of at least 15,00,000 won at a comprehensive credit collection agency for at least six months, and thus, at least 1,930,054,553 won, which is at least 20% of the credit amount, should be classified under the High Court Act, should be set as the allowance for bad debts. However, 337,759,547 won, which is 3.5% of the credit amount, should be classified under the High Court Act, is set as the allowance for bad debts, and the allowance for bad debts has been set at KRW 1,592,295,06 (=1,930,054, 530,53-37,759,547 won (Evidence 17, 39).

(14) Loan claims of 986,262,825 won in the Geum century.

Since the gold century corporation closed its business as of June 30, 2009, it was required to classify the above loan claims below 20% of the amount of the credit as the bad debts allowance, at least 197,252,565 won, which is 20% of the amount of the credit. However, 12,328,285 won, which is 1.25% of the amount of the credit, was classified as the normal law, was set up as the bad debts allowance for bad debts (=184,924,280 won (=197,252,52,565 won-12,328,285 won). (A or evidence 61, A or 39)

⑮ 주식회사 시티웍스 11,781,223,048원 대출채권

주식회사 시티웍스가 2009. 6. 30. 기준으로 종합신용정보집중기관에 15,000,000원 이상의 연체금을 6개월 이상 보유하고 있는 신용불량업체로 등록되었으므로 위 대출채권을 「고정」 이하로 분류하여 채권액의 20%인 2,356,244,609원 이상을 대손충당금으로 설정하여야 하는데, 「요주의」로 분류하고 채권액의 4.4%인 518,373,814원을 대손충당금으로 설정하여 대손충당금 1,837,870,795원(=2,356,244,609원-518,373,814원)을 적게 설정하였다(갑나 제38호증 18쪽, 갑나 제39호증).

Loans of KRW 10,297,430,091 against Nonparty 2

Since Non-party 2 closed down as of June 30, 2009, it is necessary to classify the above loan claims below 20% of the amount of the credit as the bad debts allowance, and set up at least 2,059,486,018 won, which is 20% of the amount of the credit as the bad debts allowance. In addition, 205,948,602 won, which is classified as the General Principles and 205,93,537,416 won (=2,059,486,018 won-205,948,602 won) was lower than the bad debts allowance (Evidence 62, A or 40 evidence).

(c) Preparation of an audit report by the Defendant Anajin Accounting Corporation;

1) Around August 2009, the Defendant Ansan Accounting Corporation audited the accounting audit for the 38th business year of the Solomon Savings Bank in accordance with the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies (hereinafter “ External Audit Act”).

2) While conducting an accounting audit for the 38th business year of the Solomon Savings Bank, the Defendant Ammon Savings Bank was aware that it entered the instant false statement (except for the part on loan claims of KRW 23,000,000,000, and KRW 23,000,000, and KRW 3,000,000) in the instant financial statement (hereinafter “the audit report of this case”) on September 9, 2009, the audit report was prepared to the effect that the solomon Savings Bank was properly prepared in accordance with the generally accepted accounting standards for the 38th business year of the Solomon Savings Bank (hereinafter “the audit report of this case”), and submitted the audit report to the Solomon Savings Bank, etc. on September 9, 2009 (No. 2 evidence No. A, 9,10,22,36,39, 340, and evidence No. 1).

(d) Preparation of the 38 business report of the Solomon Savings Bank;

1) Around September 2009, the Solomon Savings Bank prepared an annual report (hereinafter “instant annual report”) on the 38 business years (from July 1, 2008 to June 30, 2009) pursuant to Article 159 of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (hereinafter “Capital Markets Act”) and submitted it to the Financial Services Commission, etc. on September 28, 2009 (Evidence A or evidence 22).

2) On June 30, 2009, the Solomon Savings Bank entered the financial status as of June 30, 2009 in the instant business report as the content of the instant financial statements, including the false statement, and submitted the audit opinion that the Defendant Almon Accounting Corporation, an auditor in the 38th business year, submitted the audit opinion that the said financial status is adequate, and attached the instant audit report (Evidence A or 23).

E. Issuance of corporate bonds on September 29, 2009 by Solomon Savings Bank

1) Around September 2009, Solomon Savings Bank prepared a registration statement on the issuance of subordinated corporate bonds with a total face value of 30 billion won (interest rate of 8.5%, payment of interest every three months after issuance, maturity of 3 months, October 29, 2014; hereinafter “first corporate bonds of this case”) and the invitation of investors to subscribe to this (hereinafter “instant registration statement”) and submitted it to the Financial Services Commission on September 11, 2009 (No. 3 evidence No. 1, No. 5, and No. 22-1).

2) On June 30, 2009, the Solomon Savings Bank entered the financial status as of June 30, 2009 in the instant report on the first securities, including the instant false statement, and submitted the audit opinion that the Defendant Ammon Accounting Corporation, an auditor in the 38th business year, was adequate for the financial status, and attached the instant financial statement.

3) On September 29, 2009, the Solomon Savings Bank issued the first corporate bonds of this case, and the plaintiffs paid each amount listed in the No. 2 column of the Purchase Price [Attachment 2] and accepted part of the first corporate bonds of this case (the fact that there is no dispute).

4) The Plaintiffs received interest from the Solomon Savings Bank on May 6, 2012 on the first corporate bonds of this case (the fact that there is no dispute).

(f) Issuance of corporate bonds on March 19, 2010 by Solomon Savings Bank;

1) Around February 2010, Solomon Savings Bank prepared a registration statement on the issuance of subordinated corporate bonds with a total face value of 45 billion won (interest rate of 8.1%, payment of interest every three months after issuance, maturity of 3 months, April 19, 2015; hereinafter “second corporate bonds of this case”) and the offering of investors to whom it will take over (hereinafter “instant second corporate bonds registration statement”) and submitted it to the Financial Services Commission on February 26, 2010 (No. 3-2, No. 6, and evidence No. 1).

2) On June 30, 2009, the Solomon Savings Bank entered the financial status as of June 30, 2009 in the instant report on the second securities, including the instant false statement, and submitted the audit opinion that the Defendant Ansan Accounting Corporation, an auditor in the 38th business year, was adequate for the financial status, and attached the instant financial statement.

3) On March 19, 2010, Solomon Savings Bank issued the second corporate bonds of this case, and the plaintiffs paid each amount listed in the No. 2 column of the Purchase Price No. 2, and accepted part of the second corporate bonds of this case (the fact that there is no dispute).

4) The Plaintiffs received interest from the Solomon Savings Bank on the second corporate bonds of this case from April 18, 2012 (the fact that there is no dispute).

(g) The Solomon Savings Bank on April 30, 2013;

1) On August 20, 2012, the Plaintiffs filed the instant lawsuit against the Solomon Savings Bank, Defendant Ansan Accounting Corporation, the Financial Supervisory Service, and the Republic of Korea seeking the payment of damages due to the instant false statement. On April 30, 2013, the Seoul Central District Court declared bankruptcy against Solomon Savings Bank and appointed the Defendant Deposit Insurance Corporation as the trustee in bankruptcy (Seoul Central District Court 2013Hahap46, evidence A, and 16).

2) The Plaintiffs were unable to receive the entire principal and interest on each of the instant corporate bonds, the payment order of which is subordinate due to the bankruptcy of the Solomon Savings Bank (No. 16-2).

3) From among the damage claims arising from the instant false entry into the Solomon Savings Bank, the Plaintiffs filed a report on each amount indicated in the relevant column of the Attached Table 2 “Report Amount” (i.e., each amount listed in the relevant column of the “Purchase Price” + damages from April 29, 2013 to April 29, 2013 from the date of payment of purchase price) as bankruptcy claims. The Defendant Deposit Insurance Corporation recognized each amount listed in the relevant column of the Attached Table 2 “Cronon Amount” and denied the remainder (a) (the evidence No. 6, No. 7, No. 35, the evidence No. 35, the Defendant Deposit Insurance Corporation attached to the preparatory brief as of September 17, 2015).

4) On June 3, 2013, Defendant Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation taken over the instant lawsuit against Solomon Savings Bank, and the Plaintiffs revised the purport of the claim to seek the confirmation of the bankruptcy claim against Defendant Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation pursuant to Article 464 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, etc. at the trial.

[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap's entries in the evidence of subparagraphs 1 through 9, A, or evidence of subparagraphs 1 through 55, Eul's evidence of subparagraphs 1 through 4, and Eul's evidence of subparagraphs 1 through 12, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. A claim against the defendant Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Ansan Accounting Corporation;

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

The plaintiffs make the following arguments as the causes of the claims against Defendant Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation and Ansan Accounting Corporation:

1) The Solomon Savings Bank made the instant financial statements, the instant first securities statement, the instant second securities statement, and the instant business report.

2) The Defendant Ansan Accounting Corporation prepared the instant audit report to the effect that the instant financial statements were properly prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting standards without being aware of the existence of the false entries in the instant financial statements, and the solomon Savings Bank attached the instant audit report to the instant business report.

3) The Plaintiffs: (a) acquired the instant Claim No. 1 or the instant Claim No. 2 with the belief of the false entry; (b) but failed to receive the principal and interest thereof due to the bankruptcy of the Solomon Savings Bank; and (c) thereby incurred losses from the loss of each purchase price indicated in the relevant column of [Attachment 2] of the Purchase Price

4) Therefore, the Solomon Savings Bank shall pay the plaintiffs the amount stated in the [Attachment 2] No. 125(1)1 of the Capital Markets Act or Article 750 of the Civil Act as compensation for damages under Article 125(1)1 of the same Act or Article 750 of the Civil Act. The plaintiffs seek against the defendant Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation the confirmation of bankruptcy claims against each of the money listed in the [Attachment 2] No. 2.

5) Under Article 170(1) of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, Article 17(2) of the External Audit Act, or Article 750 of the Civil Act, Defendant Ansan Accounting Corporation shall pay to the Plaintiffs each amount of money listed in the [Attachment 2] Claim Nos. 170(1) and damages for delay.

B. Relevant statutes

본문내 포함된 표 ◆ 구 「자본시장과 금융투자업에 관한 법률」 (2013. 5. 28. 법률 제11845호로 개정되기 전의 것) ○ 제125조(거짓의 기재 등으로 인한 배상책임) ① 증권신고서(정정신고서 및 첨부서류를 포함한다. 이하 이 조에서 같다)와 투자설명서 중 중요사항에 관하여 거짓의 기재 또는 표시가 있거나 중요사항이 기재 또는 표시되지 아니함으로써 증권의 취득자가 손해를 입은 경우에는 다음 각 호의 자는 그 손해에 관하여 배상의 책임을 진다. 다만, 배상의 책임을 질 자가 상당한 주의를 하였음에도 불구하고 이를 알 수 없었음을 증명하거나 그 증권의 취득자가 취득의 청약을 할 때에 그 사실을 안 경우에는 배상의 책임을 지지 아니한다. 1. 그 증권신고서의 신고인과 신고 당시의 발행인의 이사 ○ 제126조(손해배상액) ① 제125조에 따라 배상할 금액은 청구권자가 해당 증권을 취득함에 있어서 실제로 지급한 금액에서 다음 각 호의 어느 하나에 해당하는 금액을 뺀 금액으로 추정한다. 1. 제125조에 따라 손해배상을 청구하는 소송의 변론이 종결될 때의 그 증권의 시장가격(시장가격이 없는 경우에는 추정처분가격을 말한다) 2. 제1호의 변론종결 전에 그 증권을 처분한 경우에는 그 처분가격 ② 제1항에 불구하고 제125조에 따라 배상책임을 질 자는 청구권자가 입은 손해액의 전부 또는 일부가 중요사항에 관하여 거짓의 기재 또는 표시가 있거나 중요사항이 기재 또는 표시되지 아니함으로써 발생한 것이 아님을 증명한 경우에는 그 부분에 대하여 배상책임을 지지 아니한다. ○ 제170조(회계감사인의 손해배상책임) ① 「주식회사의 외부감사에 관한 법률」 제17조 제2항부터 제7항까지의 규정은 선의의 투자자가 사업보고서 등에 첨부된 회계감사인의 감사보고서를 신뢰하여 손해를 입은 경우 그 회계감사인의 손해배상책임에 관하여 준용한다. ◆ 구 「주식회사의 외부감사에 관한 법률」(2013. 12. 30. 법률 제12148호로 개 정되기 전의 것) ○ 제17조(손해배상책임) ② 감사인이 중요한 사항에 관하여 감사보고서에 기재하지 아니하거나 거짓으로 기재를 함으로써 이를 믿고 이용한 제3자에게 손해를 발생하게 한 경우에는 그 감사인은 제3자에게 손해를 배상할 책임이 있다. (단서 생략) ⑤ 감사인 또는 감사에 참여한 공인회계사가 제1항부터 제3항까지의 규정에 따른 손해배상책임을 면하기 위하여는 그 임무를 게을리하지 아니하였음을 증명하여야 한다. (단서 생략) ◆ 「민법」 ○ 제750조(불법행위의 내용) 고의 또는 과실로 인한 위법행위로 타인에게 손해를 가한 자는 그 손해를 배상할 책임이 있다.

C. Occurrence of liability for damages

1) When the Solomon Savings Bank made the false statement in the First Securities Statement and the Second Securities Report in this case, it can be deemed that the Solomon Savings Bank constitutes the case where it made a false statement in the Securities Registration Statement under Article 125(1) of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act in consideration of the importance of the bad debt allowances for loan loans in relation to the financial status of the mutual savings bank whose main business is the loan, the amount of the bad debt allowances under-paid bad debts allowances (in 41,81,97,982), the amount of the bad debts allowances under-paid by the false statement in this case (in 17,841,03,038,893 [(-)] and the change in the loss during the 38 business year (in 17,841,03,893 ? 59,653,016,875].

2) The audit report of this case was prepared to the effect that the Defendant Ansan Accounting Corporation did not know that the instant financial statements were false, but did not point out it, and that the instant financial statements were prepared appropriately in accordance with generally accepted accounting standards. In full view of the circumstances as seen in the above Paragraph (1) of the same Article, it may be deemed that the Defendant Ansan Accounting Corporation falls under the case where it did not enter important matters in the audit report or made a false statement in the audit report under Article 170(1) of the Capital Markets Act and Article 17(2) of the External Audit Act.

3) The Plaintiffs acquired the instant corporate bond No. 1 or the instant company bond No. 2, but failed to receive the principal and interest thereof due to the bankruptcy of the Solomon Savings Bank on April 30, 2013 (the price of each of the above corporate bonds became zero won). Accordingly, the Plaintiffs suffered losses from losing each purchase price set forth in the No. Serial No. 2 of the Purchase Price Act.

4) Therefore, pursuant to Article 125(1)1 of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act or Article 750 of the Civil Act, the solomon Savings Bank shall compensate each of the plaintiffs for the damages equivalent to the amount stated in the corresponding column of attached Table 2 of the Purchase Price Act pursuant to Article 170(1) of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, Article 17(2) of the External Audit Act, or Article 750 of the Civil Act.

However, with respect to Solomon Savings Bank, the plaintiffs received part of interest on the first and second debentures of this case. The first and second debentures of this case were subordinate corporate bonds, which were planned to be lower than the other creditors in the event that Solomon Savings Bank goes bankrupt, but were paid in the same order with other creditors by receiving compensation for damages. In light of the ratio of the amount resulting from the false statement in this case to the assets, capital, etc., the liability is limited to compensating for 60% of the above damages. The above liability is limited to the defendant Solomon Savings Bank in consideration of the above circumstances and the relation between the audit report in this case and the company acquisition of the above debentures of this case.

D. Determination on the claim against Defendant Deposit Insurance Corporation

1) The Solomon Savings Bank is obligated to pay each of the money listed in the corresponding column of the amount of liability for damages in attached Form 2 (attached Form 2 60% of each amount listed in the corresponding column of the purchase price in attached Form 2) to the defendant Anjin Accounting Corporation and each of the plaintiffs, and to pay damages for delay from April 30, 2013.

2) Plaintiff 1 through 98, 100 through 106, 108 through 135 reported the above damage compensation claim (excluding the part on damage compensation from April 30, 2013) to the Solomon Savings Bank as bankruptcy claim, and Defendant Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation recognized the respective amount stated in the No. 2 of the Attached Table 3 among them and denied the remainder. The Solomon Savings Bank bears the liability to compensate for damages for the remainder after deducting each amount listed in the corresponding No. 2 of the Attached Table 2 of the damage compensation amount from each amount listed in the relevant No. 2 of the Attached Table 2 of the damage compensation amount. As for Plaintiff 10, 11, 71, 92, 93, 123, 134, and 134, the amount stated in the corresponding No. 2 of the Attached Table 1 to 9, 12 through 70, 21 through 318, 201 through 412, 201 through 1368.

3) In the bankruptcy proceeding against Solomon Savings Bank, Plaintiff 9 and 107 reported the above damage claim (excluding the part on the damages for delay from April 30, 2013) as a bankruptcy claim, and Defendant Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation was the whole time period, and there is no bankruptcy claim for Plaintiff 9 and 107 as to Plaintiff 9 and 107.

E. Determination as to the claim against the defendant Jinjin Accounting Corporation

1) The Defendant Ansan Accounting Corporation is obligated to pay each of the money listed in the corresponding column of [Attachment 3] of [Attachment 3 to the Solomon Savings Bank and each of the plaintiffs (20% of each of the money listed in the corresponding column of [Attachment 3] and damages for delay from April 30, 2013.

2) Therefore, Defendant Ansan Accounting Corporation shall pay to each of the plaintiffs listed in the [Attachment 3] column for [Attachment 12, 17, 19, 23, 24, 25, 31, 35, 39, 41, 42, 43, 48, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 58, 59, 60, 63, 72, 73, 77, 78, 80, 83, 84, 87, 89, 91, 94, 97 through 101, 103, 107, 101, 111, 15, 52, 53, 54, 54, 54, 500, 130, 205, 130, 215, 131, 216, 14.

F. Determination on the remainder of the assertion by Plaintiffs and Defendant Deposit Insurance Corporation

1) The plaintiffs asserted that the Solomon Savings Bank included Solomon Private Equity Investment, SM&A partnership and Solomon Investment Securities in the subsidiaries subject to connection and calculates its equity capital ratio, and also constitutes a false statement in the financial statements of this case, the first securities statement of this case, the second securities statement of this case, and the business report of this case.

As seen in paragraph (1), as long as the acquisition of solomon savings bank's equity investment shares cannot be deemed null and void as the approval of the Financial Supervisory Commission for the acquisition of Solomon private equity investment shares is valid, it cannot be viewed as a false calculation of the equity capital ratio of Solomon savings bank by including Solomon private equity investment, SM&&&partnership and Solomon equity securities in the subsidiaries subject to connection. Thus, the plaintiffs' assertion in this part is rejected.

2) The Defendant Deposit Insurance Corporation asserts that the Plaintiff’s filing of the instant lawsuit is unlawful as it had already been adjusted by Defendant Financial Supervisory Service in relation to the claim for damages arising from the instant false description on the Solomon Savings Bank, as there is no legal interest in the lawsuit.

According to the overall purport of evidence Gap and evidence Nos. 33 and 34, the plaintiffs (excluding plaintiffs 12, 23, 27, 49, 91, 115, 119, 121, 124, 125, 130, 132) have violated the obligation of customer protection, such as the duty of explanation, while selling the first and second corporate bonds of this case and the second corporate bonds of this case, and thus compensation for damages shall be paid. The plaintiffs (excluding plaintiffs 12, 23, 27, 49, 91, 115, 119, 121, 124, 125, 130, 132) filed an application with the Governor of the Financial Supervisory Service for dispute mediation pursuant to Article 53 (1) of the Act on the Establishment, etc. of Financial Services Commission. ② The Governor of the Financial Supervisory Service referred the dispute mediation case to the Financial Dispute Mediation Committee of the Financial Supervisory Service pursuant to Article 53 (3).

On the other hand, the above plaintiffs were under the control of Solomon Savings Bank in relation to the claim for damages due to violation of the duty to protect customers against Solomon Savings Bank, and did not mediate in relation to the claim for damages due to the false statement in this case. In addition, since the above adjustment clearly stated that the above adjustment does not affect the claim for damages due to the false statement in this case, it cannot be said that the plaintiffs' claim for damages in this case has no interest in the lawsuit on the ground of the above adjustment.

Therefore, Defendant Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation’s assertion is without merit.

3. A claim against Defendant Financial Supervisory Service or Korea;

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

The Plaintiffs, as the cause of the claims against Defendant Financial Supervisory Service and Korea, shall make the following arguments:

1) Solomon private equity investment is a major shareholder of the Solomon Savings Bank and Nonparty 1, the representative director of the Solomon Savings Bank, actually controlled its management. Thus, it constitutes a same affiliated company of the Solomon Savings Bank pursuant to Article 4(2) of the Regulations on the Supervision of Business of Mutual Savings Banks and Article 30(2)7 of the Enforcement Decree of the Mutual Savings Banks Act. Therefore, it is not allowed to acquire shares of Solomon Private Equity Investment, which are the same affiliated company, by investing the Solomon Savings Bank in excess of 5/100 of its equity capital exceeding 239.7 billion won, in accordance with Article 18-2 subparag. 1 of the Mutual Savings Banks Act and Article 30(1)3 of the Regulations on the Supervision of Business of Mutual Savings Banks.

2) Therefore, the Defendant Financial Supervisory Service should have prepared and submitted to the Financial Supervisory Commission a written opinion to the effect that “The acquisition of shares of Solomon Savings Bank in this case is in violation of Article 30(1)3 of the Regulations on the Supervision of Business of Mutual Savings Banks, and thus should not be approved.” However, the employee of the Defendant Financial Supervisory Service, without stating in the instant written opinion the results of examining whether the acquisition of Solomon Savings Bank’s shares of Solomon Savings Bank violates Article 30(1)3 of the Regulations on the Supervision of Business of Mutual Savings Banks, shall not violate Article 30(1)4 of the solomon Savings Bank’s shares of Solomon Savings Bank, and thus, it is reasonable to approve the acquisition of Solomon Savings Bank’s shares of Solomon Savings Bank’s shares of acquisition.”

3) The members of the Financial Supervisory Commission approved the acquisition of shares of the Solomon Savings Bank in Solomon Savings Bank without being aware of the violation of Article 30(1)3 of the Regulations on the Supervision of Business of Mutual Savings Banks even though they knew that the acquisition of shares of Solomon Savings Bank in this case was in violation of Article 30(1)3 of the Regulations on the Supervision of Mutual Savings Banks.

4) Employees belonging to the Defendant Financial Supervisory Service and members of the Financial Supervisory Commission approved the acquisition of the shares in Solomon Savings Bank in Solomon Savings Bank as they were, and as a result, the Solomon Savings Bank included Solomon Private Equity Investment, SM&A partnership and Solomon Investment Securities in the subsidiaries subject to connection, calculated on June 30, 200 as 9.82% of the base equity capital ratio as of June 30, 2009 and entered in the instant financial statements, the first securities registration statement, the second securities registration statement, and the instant business report.

5) The Plaintiffs believed the aforementioned false statement and acquired the first or second corporate bonds of this case, but failed to receive the principal and interest thereof due to the bankruptcy of the Solomon Savings Bank, thereby resulting in loss of each purchase price set forth in the relevant column of Attached 2 of the Purchase Price Act.

6) Therefore, Defendant Financial Supervisory Service is liable for damages under Article 756 of the Civil Act for the aforementioned illegal acts committed by its employees, and Defendant Republic of Korea shall pay each individual Plaintiffs the damages under the main sentence of Article 2(1) of the State Compensation Act with regard to the above illegal acts committed by its employees, who are members of the Financial Supervisory Commission and employees of the Defendant Financial Supervisory Service, who are entrusted with official duties, as the damages under the main sentence of Article 2(1) of the State Compensation Act.

B. Relevant statutes

본문내 포함된 표 ◆ 구 「상호저축은행법」(2008. 2. 29. 법률 제8863호로 개정되기 전의 것) ○ 제18조의2(금지업무) 상호저축은행은 다음 각 호의 행위를 하여서는 아니된다. 1. 자기자본을 초과하는 유가증권(금융감독위원회가 정하는 것을 제외한다)에 대한 투자. 이 경우 금융감독위원회는 상호저축은행의 건전한 경영을 위하여 필요한 범위 내에서 유가증권의 종류별로 투자한도를 따로 정할 수 있다. ◆ 구 「상호저축은행업 감독규정」(2008. 2. 27. 금융감독위원회 공고 제2008-8호로 개정되기 전의 것) ○ 제30조(유가증권 보유의 제한) ① 상호저축은행은 법 제18조의2 제1호의 규정에 의하여 유가증권(제29조 제1항의 규정에 의한 유가증권을 제외한다)을 매입·보유하는 경우 다음 각 호의 한도를 준수하여야 한다. 3. 상호저축은행의 동일계열기업 주식 및 회사채는 자기자본의 100분의 5 이내 4. 비상장 주식 및 회사채는 자기자본의 100분의 10 이내 및 주식은 당해 회사 발행주식총수의 100분의 10 이내. (단서 생략) ○ 제4조(정의) ② 이 규정에서 "동일계열기업"이라 함은 시행령 제30조 제2항 제4호 내지 제7호에 해당하는 법인 등을 말한다. ◆ 구 「상호저축은행법 시행령」(2010. 9. 20. 대통령령 제22401호로 개정되기 전의 것) ○ 제30조(대주주 등의 범위) ① 법 제37조 제1항 제1호에서 "대통령령으로 정하는 주주"란 상호저축은행의 의결권 있는 발행주식 총수의 100분의 2 이상을 보유한 주주를 말한다. ② 법 제37조 제1항 제3호에서 "대통령령이 정하는 친족 또는 특수한 관계에 있는 자"라 함은 다음 각 호의 어느 하나에 해당하는 자를 말한다. 7. 법 제37조 제1항 제1호의 규정에 의한 대주주 또는 상호저축은행의 임원이 사실상 그 경영을 지배하고 있다고 인정되는 법인 등으로서 금융감독원장이 금융위원회의 승인을 얻어 정하는 기준에 해당하는 법인 등 ◆ 「민법」 ○ 제756조(사용자의 배상책임) ① 타인을 사용하여 어느 사무에 종사하게 한 자는 피용자가 그 사무집행에 관하여 제삼자에게 가한 손해를 배상할 책임이 있다. 그러나 사용자가 피용자의 선임 및 그 사무감독에 상당한 주의를 한 때 또는 상당한 주의를 하여도 손해가 있을 경우에는 그러하지 아니하다. ◆ 「국가배상법」 ○ 제2조(배상책임) ① 국가나 지방자치단체는 공무원 또는 공무를 위탁받은 사인(이하 "공무원"이라 한다)이 직무를 집행하면서 고의 또는 과실로 법령을 위반하여 타인에게 손해를 입히거나, 「자동차손해배상 보장법」에 따라 손해배상의 책임이 있을 때에는 이 법에 따라 그 손해를 배상하여야 한다. (단서 생략)

C. Determination

1) Solomon savings bank acquired the shares of Solomon private equity investment in this case, thereby holding 9.77% of shares in Solomon private equity investment. 8.3% of shares of its affiliated company (=5.37% of shares of Solomon savings bank in Busan Solomon Mutual Savings Bank + 2.17% of shares of Solomon Mutual Savings Bank in Solomon Mutual Savings Bank + 0.76% of shares of Solomon Mutual Savings Bank in Solomon Mutual Savings Bank), it was held as a total of 18.07% of shares. The general partner of Solomon private equity investment and representative employees of Solomon Private Savings Bank were to control the management of Solomon private equity investment in Solomon Savings Bank. As a result, since non-party 1, the lender, representative director, of Solomon Savings Bank, actually controlled the management of Solomon private equity investment in Solomon Savings Bank, it constitutes a major shareholder of Solomon Savings Mutual Savings Bank under Article 30(2)7 of the Enforcement Decree of the Mutual Savings Banks.

2) The acquisition of shares of Solomon private equity investment by the Solomon Savings Bank of this case is to acquire shares of Solomon private equity investment exceeding 5/100 of its equity capital of 239.7 billion won by investing more than 18 billion won and not permitted pursuant to Article 30(1)3 of the Regulations on the Supervision of Mutual Savings Banks. As such, the employees of the Defendant Financial Supervisory Service of the Solomon Savings Bank of this case should have examined whether the acquisition of Solomon equity investment shares of Solomon Savings Bank of this case violates Article 30(1)3 of the Regulations on the Supervision of Mutual Savings Banks Business of this case, but did not state it in the written opinion of this case, and it can be deemed unlawful as it neglected to perform their duties intentionally or by negligence.

3) However, in full view of the following circumstances, the Plaintiffs cannot be said to have suffered damages from the alleged violation by the employees of the Financial Supervisory Service.

(1) Although there is a serious defect in approving the acquisition of shares in Solomon Savings Bank in the Solomon Savings Bank, which is not allowed pursuant to Article 30 (1) 3 of the Regulations on the Supervision of Business of Mutual Savings Banks, there is room to view that there is a material defect in Gap or Gap's items of evidence 1, 20, 46, 47, 53, 54, and 55, the above approval of the Financial Supervisory Commission is insufficient to recognize that the existence of such defect is objectively apparent at the time of the above approval, and there is no other evidence to prove that the above approval is valid. As long as the above approval is valid, the acquisition of shares in Solomon Savings Bank in the Solomon Savings Bank is also valid, and as a result, it can be said that Solomon Savings Bank's employees are in control of Solomon Private Equity Investment, SM&S and Solomon Savings Savings Bank's subsidiary companies. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Plaintiffs calculated its equity capital ratio by means of solomon Savings Bank's own equity capital ratio and its own equity capital ratio as above, it cannot be included in Solomon savings.

② Even if the Plaintiffs suffered damages as alleged in the Plaintiffs’ assertion due to the Defendant Financial Supervisory Service’s unlawful act, it cannot be said that there exists a proximate causal relation between the unlawful act committed by the employees of the Defendant Financial Supervisory Service and the Plaintiffs’ damages (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2015Da210194, Dec. 23, 2015; 203Da30877, Jun. 10, 1994; 208Da30877, Jun. 10, 2094).

4) Meanwhile, since the plaintiffs did not specifically assert and prove how members of the Financial Supervisory Commission violated their duty of care, they cannot recognize the violation of the duty of care of members of the Financial Supervisory Commission, and even if they recognize domestic affairs, they cannot be said to have suffered damages from their assertion on the grounds as seen in the above 3).

5) Therefore, Defendant Financial Supervisory Service cannot be held liable for damages under Article 756 of the Civil Act to the Plaintiffs. Defendant Republic of Korea also cannot be held liable for damages under the main sentence of Article 2(1) of the State Compensation Act. Thus, Defendant Financial Supervisory Service, Defendant Financial Supervisory Service, and Defendant Financial Supervisory Service’s claim against Korea are without merit.

4. Conclusion

A. The claim against the defendant Deposit Insurance Corporation that the plaintiffs listed in attached Form 1-1 changed in exchange at the trial of the trial is justified, respectively.

Of the claims against the defendant Deposit Insurance Corporation that the plaintiffs listed in attached Form 1-2 (excluding plaintiffs 99, 107) changed in exchange from the trial, the part within the above-mentioned scope shall be quoted in each of the grounds, and the remainder shall be dismissed as it is without merit.

The claim against the defendant Deposit Insurance Corporation that the plaintiff 99 and 107 changed in exchange from the trial is dismissed for reasons that are not reasonable.

B. Of the plaintiffs' claims against the defendant Jinjin Accounting Corporation, the part corresponding to the above amount shall be cited respectively for the reasons, and the remainder shall be dismissed for each reason.

Since the part against the plaintiffs corresponding to the above money in the judgment of the court of first instance as to the above claim is unfair with different conclusions, it shall be revoked, and it shall be ordered that the above amount should be paid to the plaintiffs to the defendant Jin-jin Accounting Corporation.

Of the judgment of the court of first instance on the above claim, the remaining appeals by the plaintiffs against the defendant Jinjin Accounting Corporation are dismissed, as the conclusion is just.

C. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendant Financial Supervisory Service should be dismissed in entirety due to the lack of grounds. The judgment of the court of first instance on the above claims is just in conclusion, and the plaintiffs' appeals against the defendant Financial Supervisory Service are dismissed in entirety.

D. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendant Republic of Korea shall be dismissed in entirety due to the lack of reason. The judgment of the court of first instance on the above claims is just in conclusion, and the plaintiffs' appeals against the defendant Republic of Korea are dismissed in entirety.

E. It is so decided as per Disposition for more than one reason.

[Attachment]

Judges Kim Jong-chul (Presiding Judge)