[1] Whether a purchaser of shares in an open market constitutes a purchaser of shares in the scope of a person entitled to claim compensation for damages under Article 14 of the Securities and Exchange Act, which provides for liability for false public disclosure of shares (negative)

[2] The scope of an auditor who is liable for damages under Article 17 (2) of the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies

[1] Article 14 (Liability for Damages Caused by False Statements) of the Securities and Exchange Act provides that "if an issuer causes damage to a purchaser of securities due to a false entry or indication in a securities registration statement or a prospectus (including a preliminary prospectus) under Article 12 or failure to enter or indicate important matters, any of the following persons shall be liable for such damages: Provided, That the same shall not apply where a person who shall be liable for damages proves that he/she was unable to know such false entry or omission in spite of his/her due diligence or that the purchaser of the securities knew the fact at the time of his/her offering to acquire the securities, the person entitled to claim damages pursuant to the above provisions shall be limited to a person who purchased the securities by means of public offering or sale based on the false entry report, and the person who purchased the securities on the Association brokerage market shall be excluded

[2] An auditor liable for damages under Article 17(2) of the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies is limited to an auditor who conducts an external audit under Article 3 of the same Act.

[1] Articles 14 and 15 of the Securities and Exchange Act / [2] Articles 2, 3, and 17 (2) of the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies

Long-art and 12 others (Attorney Kim Young-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Dongbu Securities Co., Ltd and one other (Law Firm Han-sung, Attorneys Kim-hee et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

주식회사 옌트 외 3인(소송대리인 변호사 황규범)

Seoul District Court Decision 98Gahap93359, 99Gahap2824 delivered on January 25, 2000

1. The appeal filed by the defendant Song-gu Accounting Corporation against the plaintiff Park Jae-won and the consignor shall be dismissed, respectively.

2.(a)The part of the judgment of the court below against the plaintiff, which ordered payment in excess of 545,700 won and 6% per annum from November 15, 1998 to January 9, 2001 and 25% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment, shall be revoked, and the above plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above revoked part shall be dismissed.

B. The defendants' remaining appeals against the plaintiff Song-tae are dismissed, respectively.

3. The judgment of the court below on the plaintiff's flapar, Lee Jae-young, Lee Young-hee, Park Jong-hee, Park Jong-hee, Park Jong-hee, Kim Jong-hee, Kim Jong-Gyeong, Park Jong-sik, Park Jong-il, Park Jong-il, and the upper court's decision is revoked,

4. The costs of appeal between the defendant Song-gu Accounting Corporation and the plaintiff Park Jae-gu and the defendant Park Jae-gu are four minutes of the costs of appeal between the above defendant, the plaintiff Song-gu and the defendant, and the remaining three minutes of the costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant, the plaintiff Park Jae-gu, Lee Jae-hee, Lee Jae-hee, Lee Jae-hee, Kim Jong-hee, Kim Jong-hee, creation silent, Kim Jong-hee, Kim Jong-hee, Park Jong-hee, Park Jong-il, Park Jong-il, the last day and the defendants respectively.

1. Purport of claim

The defendants shall pay 25% interest per annum from the date following the date of service of a copy of the complaint of this case to the date of full payment for each of the stated amounts in the request for the calculation sheet.

2. Purport of appeal

Defendant Dong-dong Securities Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant Dong-dong Securities”): The judgment of the court below on the Plaintiff Park Jong-dae, Lee Jae-young, Ansan-hee, Kim Young-hee, Park Young-hee, Park Ho-ho, Kim Jong-ho, Kim Jong-ho, Kim Jong-ho, Park Jong-ho, Park Jong-il, Park Jong-sung, Park Jong-sung, Park Young-il, and Song-

The judgment of the court below against the plaintiffs is revoked. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

1. Judgment on the plaintiff Park Jae-won, and the defendant Song-gu's claim against the defendant Song-gu corporation, and on the plaintiff Song-gu's claim against the defendants on May 25, 1998 (the purchase portion of May 25, 1998)

The part of the judgment below's "the occurrence of liability for damages" is the same as the part of "the occurrence of liability for damages of 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.3" in addition to the addition of "the assertion of comparative negligence of Defendant Song-gu Accounting Corporation's claim (4) the occurrence of liability for damages" between 10 and 11 of the judgment below and 15 of the judgment of the court below as follows, and thus, it is accepted as it is in accordance with Article 390 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the part of the claim against Defendant Song-gu Accounting Corporation and part of the claim against Defendant Song-gu's Defendants (attached Form No.25, May 25, 1998) against the Plaintiff Song-gu's Defendants.

(a) Occurrence of liability for damages;

(4) The argument of the defendant Song-gu Accounting Corporation

(C) The assertion of offsetting negligence

피고 송현회계법인은, 위 원고들에게는 감사보고서를 통하여 주식회사 옌트의 재무상황이 악화되어 있음을 알면서도 이 사건 투자에 이른 잘못, 환란위기(이른바 IMF 사태)로 인한 주식회사 옌트의 부도가능성을 예기하지 못한 잘못 등이 있고 이러한 잘못은 이 사건 손해의 발생 또는 확대의 한 원인이 되었다고 할 것이므로 피고 송현회계법인이 배상할 손해액을 정함에 있어 참작하여야 한다고 주장하나, 위 원고들이 주식회사 옌트의 재무상황이 악화되어 있음을 알면서도 이 사건 투자에 이르렀다거나 주식회사 옌트의 부도가능성을 예기할 수 있었다고 볼 만한 자료가 없으므로, 위 주장은 받아들이지 아니한다.

(b) Scope of damages;

Furthermore, with respect to the scope of liability for damages, Article 15 (1) 2 of the Securities and Exchange Act provides that in case where the claimant disposes of the securities in question before the closing of argument, the amount calculated by deducting the disposal price from the amount actually paid in the acquisition of the securities in question where the claimant disposes of the securities in question before the closing of argument.

그런데 갑 제13호증의 1 내지 3, 갑 제22호증의 1 내지 4, 갑 제33호증의 1, 2의 각 기재에 변론의 전취지에 의하면, 원고 박기원, 송민자, 송여현은 주식회사 옌트가 발행한 주식을 [별지] 계산표 매수란 중 취득일자란 기재일에 주식수란 기재 수량을 단가란 기재 가격으로 매수하였다가 매도란 중 매도일자란 기재일에 주식수란 기재 수량을 단가란 기재 가격으로 매도한 사실을 인정할 수 있고 반증 없는바, 그렇다면 위 원고들에게 배상할 금액은 취득함에 있어서 실지로 지급한 액인 [별지] 계산표 매수란 중 취득가격란 기재 금액에서 처분가격인 매도란 중 매도가격란 기재 금액을 공제한 인용액란 기재 금액과 같이 원고 박기원에 대하여 558,600원, 원고 송민자에 대하여 172,200원, 원고 송여현에 대하여 545,700원이 된다.

2. The judgment on the plaintiff's part of the claim against the plaintiff's Song-sik (excluding the part of the purchase on May 25, 1998) and on the claims against the defendants of the plaintiff's flapar, Lee Jae-young, Lee Young-hee, Kim Young-hee, Park Young-hee, Park Jong-ho, Kim Jong-ho, Kim Jong-ho, Park Jong-ho, Park Jong-il, Park Jong-il, Park

(a)The causes of such action: Article 14 of the Securities and Exchange Act;

(1) The plaintiffs' assertion

위 원고들은, 주식회사 옌트가 옌트 주식의 모집을 위하여 첨부한 유가증권신고서에 허위의 기재 또는 표시가 있거나 중요한 사항을 기재 또는 표시하지 아니함으로써, 위 원고들이 협회중개시장에서 옌트 주식을 [별지] 계산표 매수란 중 취득일자란 기재일에 주식수란 기재 수량을 단가란 기재 가격으로 매수하였다가 매도란 중 매도일자란 기재일에 주식수란 기재 주식을 단가란 기재 가격으로 각 매도하여 청구액란 기재 금액 상당의 손해를 입게 되었으므로, 증권거래법 제14조 에 따라 발행인인 옌트와 사이에 그 주식의 인수계약을 체결한 피고 동부증권과 위 유가증권신고서의 첨부서류인 감사보고서가 진실 또는 정확하다고 증명하였거나 서명한 피고 송현회계법인은 각자 위 원고들의 위 손해를 배상할 책임이 있다고 주장한다.

(2) Article 14 of the Securities and Exchange Act (amended by Act No. 6176 of Jan. 21, 2000; hereinafter the same shall apply)

(A) In Chapter 3 (Liability for Damages Caused by False Statements) Article 14 (Liability for Damages) of the Securities and Exchange Act provides that "if an issuer causes damage to a purchaser of securities due to a false entry or indication in a securities registration statement or a prospectus (including a preliminary prospectus) under Article 12 or failure to enter or indicate important matters, any of the following persons shall be liable for damages: Provided, That this shall not apply where it is proved that a person who shall be liable for damages proves that he was unable to know such false entry or indication or omission in spite of his due diligence, or that the purchaser of the securities knew such fact at the time of his offering to acquire the securities."

(b)However, a person entitled to claim damages in accordance with the above provisions shall only purchase the securities by means of public offering or sale on the basis of a false statement statement, and shall be excluded from the Association brokerage market. The reasons are as follows:

First, the Securities and Exchange Act provides that Article 186-5 (Applicable Provisions) of Chapter 9 (Public Notice of Listed Corporation, etc.) shall apply to the liability for damages caused by false statements in a securities registration statement, and Article 14 of the Securities and Exchange Act provides that the liability for damages caused by false statements in a securities registration statement shall be treated separately from the business report, etc. of listed corporation.

Second, the Securities and Exchange Act uses the term "tenders for acquisition or purchase" (Article 10(1)), "approvals for subscription" (Article 10(1)), "tenders for acquisition" (Article 14) and "tenders for acquisition" (Article 14) in Chapter 9 (Management of Listed Corporation, etc.), while it uses the term "sale or other transaction" (Article 188-3(1) and "trade or entrustment" (Article 188-5(1)) in Chapter 9 (Management of Listed Corporation, etc.).

Third, there is a need to protect those who acquire securities through the public offering or sale procedure in real time compared to those who acquire securities in the Association brokerage market. In other words, in case of acquiring securities through the public offering or sale procedure, there is a strict restriction on the time of subscription for acquisition, the price or sale price of securities is fixed, and the acquisition procedure is complicated and long, and the disposal is not easy after acquisition, so it is in an unstable position for a long time from the date of subscription until the date of disposal. In case of acquiring securities in the Association brokerage market, there is no particular restriction on the time of transaction or entrustment for acquisition, and the price is flexible, and the sale or sale procedure is relatively simple and long, and it is considerably easy after purchase, so it is necessary to protect those who acquire securities in accordance with the public offering or sale procedure in a relatively stable position compared with those who acquire securities in the Association brokerage market.

(3) Sub-decisions

따라서 협회중개시장에서 옌트 주식을 취득한 위 원고들도 증권거래법 제14조에 따라 손해배상을 청구할 수 있음을 전제로 하는 주위적 청구는 더 나아가 살펴볼 필요 없이 이유 없다.

B. Preliminary Claim (as to the Defendant’s subordinate securities):

(1) The plaintiffs' assertion

위 원고들은 예비적으로, "피고 동부증권은 ① 투자자들에게 공시하여 약속한 옌트 주식의 시장조성의무를 일방적으로 포기하였을 뿐만 아니라, ② 공모를 앞두고 옌트 주식이 등록되면 그 가격이 50,000원이 될 것이라는 식으로 유가증권의 매매 기타 거래와 관련하여 고객에게 단정적인 판단을 제공하여 매매 기타 거래를 부당하게 권유하였고, ③ 주식을 매도하려던 투자자들에게 수차례에 걸쳐 일일이 전화를 걸어서 공모가격인 20,000원으로 재매수해 줄테니 절대로 매도하지 말라고 거짓으로 부당하게 권유하였고,④ 유가증권인수업무에관한규정 제42조에 금지된 불건전한 인수행위(이면약정체결)를 하여", 위 원고들이 협회중개시장에서 옌트 주식을 [별지] 계산표 매수란 중 취득일자란 기재일에 주식수란 기재 수량을 단가란 기재 가격으로 매수하였다가 매도란 중 매도일자란 기재일에 주식수란 기재 주식을 단가란 기재 가격으로 각 매도하여 청구액란 기재 금액 상당의 손해를 입게 되었다고 주장한다.

(2) Determination:

먼저 위 ①,②,③,④의 사유는 모집의 절차에 따라 공모에 응한 투자자에 대한 것이라고 할 것인데, 위 원고들은 공모에 응한 투자자가 아니고 협회중개시장에서 옌트 주식을 매수한 자이므로 위 원고들의 주장은 이유 없다.

또한 ①의 사유에 관하여, 과연 피고 동부증권이 시장조성의무를 이행할 것을 공시하였는지에 대하여 보면 이를 인정할 만한 증거가 없고, 오히려 갑 제1호증(유가증권신고서)의 기재에 의하면 주식회사 옌트가 작성한 유가증권신고서에는 시장조성에 관하여 "시장조성이 행하여 질 수 있음"이라고만 기재되어 있는 사실을 인정할 수 있을 따름이다.

설사 피고 동부증권이 위 원고들이 주장하는 잘못을 저질렀다고 하더라도 피고 동부증권의 잘못과 위 원고들의 손해와 사이에 인과관계가 있다고 보기도 어렵다. 즉, 갑 제6호증의 1 내지 9의 각 기재에 변론의 전취지에 의하면, 옌트 주식의 1주당 주가는 모집의 절차에 따른 공모가가 20,000원이었는데 상장된 1998. 5. 25. 하한가인 17,600원을 기록하고, 같은 해 6. 13. 10,900원까지 점진적으로 하락하였고, 같은 해 7. 2. 12,500원이 되었다가 같은 해 8. 31.까지 최고 11,700원, 최저 7,480원을 유지하였고, 그 후 하락하여 같은 달 9. 11. 4,660원, 같은 달 12. 5,210원, 같은 달 14. 5,790원, 같은 달 15. 5,100원이 된 사실을 인정할 수 있고 반증 없으며, 위 원고들 중 원고 박봉호를 제외한 나머지 원고들은 [별지] 계산표의 매수란 중 단가란의 기재와 같이 옌트 주식을 최고 10,650원, 최저 4,610원에(공모가 20,000원의 약 50% 또는 약 25%이다) 협회중개시장에서 매수하였다는 것이므로, 위 원고들이 피고 동부증권의 잘못으로 인하여 옌트 주식을 매수하였다거나 또한 옌트 주식을 적절한 시기에 매도하지 못함으로써 주가 하락으로 인한 손해를 입게 되었다고 보기도 어렵고, 달리 이를 인정할 만한 증거가 없다.

(3) Sub-decisions

Thus, the plaintiffs' preliminary claim against the defendant's attached securities is without merit.

(c) Preliminary cause of claim (for the defendant Song Accounting Corporation), Article 17(2) of the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies.

(i)The plaintiff's assertion

The above plaintiffs asserted that, in accordance with Article 17 (2) of the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies, the above plaintiffs are liable for compensating for the damages suffered by the above plaintiffs, since they did not enter important matters in the audit report or made a false entry.

(2) Article 17(2) of the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies

(A) Article 17(1) of the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies provides that "if an auditor causes damage to a company due to his/her negligence in performing his/her duties, such auditor shall be liable for damages to the company," and Paragraph (2) of the same Article provides that "in cases where an auditor causes damage to a third party who trusts or utilizes an audit report by failing to enter important matters or making a false entry in an audit report, such auditor shall be liable for damages to the third party."

(b)However, the auditor liable for damages under the provisions of Section 2 of Article 17 is limited to the auditor conducting the external audit in accordance with Article 3 of that Act;

In other words, the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies provides that "the purpose of its legislative purpose is to protect interested persons and to contribute to the sound development of companies by an external auditor who is independent of a stock company by conducting an audit of the stock company and thereby ensuring appropriateness of accounting (Article 1). With respect to the scope of a company and an auditor subject to external audit, the total amount of assets at the end of the immediately preceding business year is limited to "stock company and financial statements" (Article 2). It is limited to "accounting under Article 23 of the Certified Public Accountant Act" (Article 3 (1) 1) or "accounting under Article 41 of the Certified Public Accountant Act" (Article 3 (1) 3) or "accounting under Article 41 of the Certified Public Accountant Act" for an auditor subject to such audit. In light of the above Article 17 (2) of the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies, the auditor liable for damages under Article 2 of the same Act is limited to the auditor who performs the external audit of the company subject to external audit.

(다)그런데 이 사건에 있어서 피고 송현회계법인이 감사보고서를 작성함에 있어 주식회사의외부감사에관한법률 제2조 에 따라 주식회사 옌트에 관하여 회계감사를 하였다고 볼 아무런 자료가 없으므로, 피고 송현회계법인은 주식회사의외부감사에관한법률 제17조 제2항 에 따라 손해배상책임을 지는 감사인에 해당한다고 볼 수 없다.

(3) Sub-decisions

Therefore, it cannot be deemed that Defendant Song-gu Accounting Corporation is an auditor who is liable for damages under Article 17(2) of the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies, and even if it is an auditor, it is difficult to recognize that the above plaintiffs believed the audit report prepared by Defendant Song-gu Accounting Corporation and used the audit report. Therefore, the above plaintiffs' preliminary claim against Defendant Song-gu Accounting Corporation is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, Defendant Song-gu Accounting Corporation's 58,60 won and 172,200 won and 172,200 won for each of these plaintiffs' claims against the plaintiff Park Young-chul and 25% interest per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from November 15, 1998 to the full date of delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case as the above plaintiffs seek, and the defendants' 545,70 won and the above 545,70 won for each of the plaintiffs Song-gu's 15 November 15, 1998 and the above 6% interest rate per annum under the Commercial Act, which is the date of the decision of the court below that it is reasonable for the defendants to dispute the existence and scope of their obligations, and the above part of the court below's appeal against the above plaintiff Park Young-hee's above 25% interest per annum is dismissed, and there is no reason to dismiss the remaining part of the plaintiff Park Young-hee's appeal against the plaintiff Park's above plaintiff Park.

Judge Oh-hyn (Presiding Judge) and the Constitutional Court