Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and 2 others (Law Firm Gyeongsung, Attorneys Lee Jong-soo et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

October 8, 2009

1. The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff 61,538,730 won with 5% interest per annum from March 9, 2009 to November 5, 2009, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. All remaining claims of the Plaintiff are dismissed.

3. 6/10 of the costs of lawsuit is assessed against the Plaintiff, and the remainder is assessed against the Defendants.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendants jointly and severally pay to the plaintiff 160,747,00 won with 5% interest per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of the sentencing of this case and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. The Kenya Telecom Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Kenya Telecom”) is a listed company that has issued stock certificates listed on the Korea Stock and Futures Exchange, and is engaged in the business of manufacturing communications and broadcasting equipment. Defendant 1 is the representative director of the Kenya Telecom, and Defendant 2 is the managing director (director in charge of reporting).

B. The Kenya shall prepare the financial statements of the 31st quarter, the 32st quarter, the 2006, the 32nd quarter, the 2007, and the 32nd quarter, and each business report containing matters relating to financial affairs (hereinafter referred to as the “instant business report”) based on the above financial statements, and the 31st business report of March 31, 2007 (the 31st business report), May 16, 2007 (the 32nd business report of May 16, 2007), August 15, 2007 (the 32nd business report of November 15, 207), and the Defendant 3 accounting firm shall prepare the financial statements of the 31st business year of the Kenya pursuant to the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies (hereinafter “the 32nd business report”).

C. On February 20, 2008, at the second meeting of the Securities and Futures Commission, the Securities and Futures Commission took measures to restrict issuance of securities, designate an auditor, or demand for correction on the sub-com on the ground that the sub-com was prepared and publicly announced in violation of the accounting standards. Defendant 3 accounting firm taken measures such as additional accumulation of the joint compensation fund, restriction on audit, and recommendation for suspension of performance of duties against two certified public accountants.

D. The financial statements of this case and the business report of this case prepared and published by the Kenya shall contain the following violations of the accounting standards:

(1) understates the reduced loss of negotiable securities;

Notwithstanding the fact that the financial status of a securities issuer is seriously aggravated, as in the case of complete capital erosion, it is necessary to recognize the loss by estimating the recoverable value, unless there is a clear reflect that it is unnecessary to reduce the amount of reduction. However, the Kenya did not include an amount equivalent to KRW 791,00,000 of the shares of the business Puller Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Puller”) in the status of complete capital erosion for three consecutive years.

(2) understates sales claims and advanced payments for bad debts;

It is necessary to calculate the bad debt estimated in accordance with reasonable and objective criteria as bad debt allowance. ① Sales bond 5,07,00,000 won with respect to Franchis, which has been recovered for not less than two years, 2,523,00,000 won, excluding the recoverable amount of 2,554,000,000 won with respect to Franchis, which has been recovered for not less than two years, should be set as the bad debt allowance. However, there is no possibility of recovery, but the bad debt allowance should be set as 15,00,000 won, and 2,408,000 won with respect to sales bond 2,408,000 won with no possibility of recovery, 365,000,000 won with respect to Franchis, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as “WooB”), and 300,0000 won with respect to Franchis, 300,000 won with respect to Franchis.

(3) Appropriation of inventory assets as losses

Where inventory assets are not sold within one year from the date of the balance sheet or within a long-term period of time because they cannot be put in the production, the market price at the time of settlement of accounts shall be compared to the acquisition cost if the market price is lower than the acquisition cost, but the difference should be appropriated as the inventory evaluation loss, but the inventory evaluation loss of 882,00,000 won is not appropriated.

(d)in excess appropriation of the deferred corporate tax assets;

Since the effects of temporary difference in corporate tax to be deducted only when taxable income for the future period can be realized, it is necessary to recognize the deferred corporate tax assets only when there is little possibility that the temporary difference can be utilized, and in particular, it is highly probable that the accounting losses for the recent fiscal year would not occur in the future. Thus, even if there is clear evidence that the future taxable income will occur in the future, the deferred corporate tax assets should be recognized within the scope of the deferred corporate tax. However, ① The sales revenue estimated to be excessive (50% per annum) without the history of the partial sales contract shall be included in the sales revenue of the executor contract, ② the average sales profit rate (6.6%) at the time of 200-204, which had good business performance, was estimated to increase within 1% per year by applying the sales profit rate of 3,760,000,000,000 won as of the end of 206, 2007, 300, 307, 3004, 2007, 3007,

E. On March 31, 2007, the 31st business report of the Kenya published, the Plaintiff purchased and held shares issued by the Kenya Telecom, and disposed of all of them until July 25, 2008, when the price of the Kenya Telecom fells.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Gap evidence 6 to 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

(a) Occurrence of liability for damages caused by a false description;

Article 186-5 and Article 14(1) of the former Securities and Exchange Act (amended by Act No. 8635 of Aug. 3, 2007) (amended by Act No. 8635 of Aug. 3, 2007) provides that “Where there is a false description or indication or indication of material facts, such as a fact that may affect the judgment on investment or the value of securities in a business report, or material facts are not entered or indicated.” In addition to falsely stating matters concerning the status of a company, such as the business and profit or loss of the company, and the status of the company that may affect the judgment on investment, such as financial structure, by means of a forgery or alteration of documentary evidence, etc., the financial statements such as the business report, etc. are the index of the most important investment that can assess the financial status of the company, business performance, disposal of earned surplus or deficit disposal, cash flow and capital change, and the financial statements prepared appropriately in accordance with the corporate accounting standards shall be deemed as the financial statements that are fairly indicated in the corporate accounting standards (Article 215 proviso of the corporate accounting standards).

According to the above facts, matters in violation of the accounting standards stated in the business report of this case relating to the recoverable amount of the salable securities, the amount of sales bonds and advance payment, the assessed loss of inventory assets, and the estimated amount of future taxable income. However, all these items constitute assets and capital items on the balance sheet, where they are in violation of the accounting standards, and they are in excess of the reasonable and objective scope, they can be displayed by distorted financial situation of the company. In fact, the total amount of the overpaid amount is KRW 8,694,00,000 as of the business report of 206 (31) and the above total amount is KRW 29,232,908,707 as of the above business report of this case, and thus, it can be seen that the Plaintiff was jointly and severally liable for damages arising from the misunderstanding of assets and capital in the business report of this case, and the Plaintiff was jointly and severally liable for damages arising from the misunderstanding of Article 17 of the former Securities and Exchange Act to the public (hereinafter referred to as “the above disclosure”).

B. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s additional assertion

The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff failed to reduce the value of 90,000 won of the book value of the shares of the Antarctic Telecom Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “ASEAN Telecom”) by 55,00,000 won on July 22, 1996, by absorbing at the rate of 1:48.99 on February 2003, 200, the case telecom was merged into the KET Telecom Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “KP”) by 1837 shares (acquisition value of 20,000,000) while maintaining the value of the new acquired KPcom at KRW 55,00,000, the difference in the value of the book value of the shares of the Arabic Telecom, in violation of the accounting standards.

(4) The Financial Supervisory Service’s corporate accounting standards, including corporate accounting standards, around February 203, 200. However, the first written opinion on the corporate accounting standards, which was announced by the Financial Supervisory Service at the time of the merger, is no more than 200-10 (the first written opinion on February 16, 200; hereinafter referred to as “the first written opinion”) to acquire shares of a merged company instead of the merged company. It is difficult to view that the above merger transaction is a transaction between the merged company and investors, and that there was no separate accounting case from the standpoint of the Financial Supervisory Service, and that there was no separate accounting method regarding the acquisition price of shares of the merged company (the second written opinion on corporate accounting standards, which is no more than 200). It is also necessary to reasonably apply the so-called “no more than 10-60-60-60-60-60-60-60-60-60-60-60-200-60-60-200-6.

Next, the plaintiff should have known the loss of the reduction of the stocks of the KTcom as of December 31, 2006, which is the balance sheet under the provisions of subparagraph 8 (securities) [if the amount presumed to be recoverable from securities (hereinafter referred to as "recoverable value") is less than the original acquisition price of the debt securities or the acquisition cost of the equity securities, it should be taken into account to recognize the loss of the reduction. Whether there is objective evidence to determine the occurrence of the loss on the balance sheet, and if there is no clear proof that the reduction is unnecessary, it should recognize the loss by estimating the recovery amount, unless there is a clear proof that the reduction is unnecessary on the balance sheet). The KTcom entered the net asset value of the stocks in the business report in 2006, in 8,520,000 won, and in light of the share exchange ratio (1:48.99) of the stocks at the time of the merger, it is argued that the loss was not known to have already been reduced.

살피건대, 위 기업회계기준서 문단 34는 ‘다음의 경우는 감액손실이 발생하였다는 객관적인 증거가 될 수 있다. ㈎ 은행법에 의해 설립된 금융기관으로부터 당좌거래 정지처분을 받은 경우, 청산 중에 있거나 1년 이상 휴업 중인 경우, 또는 완전자본잠식 상태에 있는 경우와 같이 유가증권발행자의 재무상태가 심각하게 악화된 경우, ㈏ 이자 지급과 원금 상환의 지연과 같은 계약의 실질적인 위반이나 채무불이행이 있는 경우, ㈐ 회사정리법에 의한 정리절차개시의 신청이 있거나 정리절차가 진행 중인 경우 또는 화의법에 의한 화의개시절차의 신청이 있거나 화의절차가 진행 중인 경우와 같이, 유가증권발행자의 재무적 곤경과 관련한 경제적 또는 법률적인 이유 때문에 당초의 차입조건의 완화가 불가피한 경우, ㈑ 유가증권발행자의 파산가능성이 높은 경우, ㈒ 과거에 그 유가증권에 대하여 감액손실을 인식하였으며 그 때의 감액사유가 계속 존재하는 경우, ㈓ 유가증권발행자의 재무상태가 악화되어 그 유가증권이 시장성을 잃게 된 경우, ㈔ 표시이자율 또는 유효이자율이 일반적인 시장이자율보다 비정상적으로 높거나 낮은 채무증권(예: 후순위채권, 정크본드)을 법규나 채무재조정협약 등에 의해 취득한 경우, ㈕ 기업구조조정촉진법에 의한 관리절차를 신청하였거나 진행 중인 경우, ㈖ 기타 ㈎ 내지 ㈕의 경우에 준하는 사유’라고 규정하고 있는바, 2006년 사업보고서 작성 당시 케이티파워텔에게 위 ㈎ 내지 ㈖의 경우에 해당하는 감액손실 발생의 객관적인 증거가 있었다는 점을 인정할 증거가 없고, 원고 주장의 위 순자산가액이 위 회계기준서에서 말하는 ‘회수가능가액’과 동일한 개념이 아니며 위 순자산가액으로부터 위 감액손실의 발생에 대한 객관적인 증거의 존재를 추정할 수 있는 것도 아닐 뿐 아니라, 원고가 주장하는 주식의 교환비율로 알 수 있다는 감액손실은 피합병회사인 아날텔레콤의 주식에 대한 것일 뿐 케이티파워텔의 주식에 대한 것은 아니므로, 원고의 위 주장은 모두 이유 없다.

C. Determination as to the defendants' assertion

(1) The assertion that there is no false description or material fact

(A) The reduction loss of the shares issued by the business operator

The defendants asserts that the evaluation approach presented in the "Real-Level Opinion on Financial Report" 2006-5 (Public Notice No. 24 November 24, 2006), which was announced by the Financial Supervisory Service, did not include the acquisition value of 791,00,000 won of the shares issued by the business operator in the reduced loss, is not based only on the market access method, i.e., the technological ability of the business operator, not on the evaluation result based only on the financial information of the business operator, i.e., the technological ability of the business operator, the above company's value as indicated in the statement of understanding concluded in the process of the sale promotion of the above company, and the purchase and sale price of the shares of the above company transacted in 206, and thus, it does not violate the accounting standards.

In light of the above facts, there is no dispute between the parties with regard to the fact that the business operator is in a state of full capital erosion for three consecutive years, and when comprehensively considering the Securities sentence 3 and 34 of the Securities Form No. 8 of the Financial Accounting Standards as seen earlier, if the recoverable value presumed to be recoverable from the securities is smaller than the acquisition cost, it should be considered to recognize the loss of reduction. Since the business operator was in a state of full capital erosion, the defendants should have recognized the loss of reduction by estimating the recoverable value unless there is a clear reflect that the reduction is unnecessary.

Therefore, as to whether there is an obvious reflect that the reduction is unnecessary, notwithstanding the above objective evidence, the above 0th 6th 1 to 5th HH 2, based on the overall purport of the arguments, the above 0th 2nd 6th H 2nd 3rd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 30th 2nd 30th 2nd 5th 2002nd 3rd 2nd 5th 2006nd 2nd 5th 2002nd 5th 2006nd 2nd 1st 5th 2002nd 2nd 1st 205th 2nd 205th 2nd 2nd 5th 205th 2nd 2nd 5th 2nd 2nd 3rd 2nd 205th 2nd 3rd 2nd 2nd 3rd 2nd 2002nd 3rd 2nd 3rd 2nd 3rd 3th 2nd 3

나아가 피고들이 위와 같은 사실을 기초로 하여 위 재무보고에 관한 실무의견서 2006-5에 제시된 바에 따라 위즈플러스 발행 주식의 공정가액을 평가하였는지 보건대, 위즈플러스가 자산규모 70억 원 미만의 비상장회사로서 그 발행주식의 공정가치를 신뢰성 있게 측정할 수 없는 경우로서 위 실무의견서를 적용할 수 있다 하더라도, 위 실무의견서에 의하면, 기업회계기준서 문단 24에서 규정하는 ‘일반적으로 합리적이라고 인정되는 평가모형을 이용한 공정가액의 결정’은 비재무적 정보의 분석, 재무정보의 분석, 평가접근법 및 평가방법의 선정 및 적용, 최종가치의 산출이라는 일반적인 가치평가절차에 따라 객관적으로 평가하는 것을 말하는 것으로서, 가치평가자는 ㉠ 비재무적 정보(회사의 주요 제품과 서비스, 경쟁사 현황, 시장 및 고객현황, 비상장주식의 과거 거래 내역 등)와 ㉡ 재무정보(가치평가에 필요하다고 판단되는 충분한 과거기간의 재무정보, 소속 산업에 대한 재무정보 등)의 분석을 바탕으로, ㉢ 평가접근법, 평가방법의 선정 및 적용의 단계(평가대상 회사의 특성을 고려하여 가치평가에 사용되는 평가접근법 및 평가방법을 정하고 이를 수행하는 접근법과 평가방법의 선정 및 적용의 단계)를 거쳐야 하는데, 이 경우 평가접근법은 크게 이익접근법, 시장접근법, 자산접근법으로 구분할 수 있고, 가치평가자는 특별한 이유가 없는 한 이 세 가지 접근법을 모두 고려하여야 하며, 그 결과 가치평가자는 전문가적인 판단을 사용하여 평가대상 기업의 특성 등을 고려하여 가장 적합하다고 판단되는 하나 또는 둘 이상의 평가방법을 사용하여 적정가치를 계산한 다음 주1) , 각 가치추정치의 타당성 및 신뢰성을 평가하여 하나의 가치평가접근법과 방법의 결과만을 활용할 것인지 또는 여러 가치평가접근법이나 방법의 결과를 종합하여 활용할 것인지를 결정해야 하며, ㉣ 마지막으로 각 가치평가접근법 및 평가방법을 사용하여 산정된 가치추정치를 근거로 최종가치를 도출함에 있어서 가치의 조정이 필요한지 여부를 신중히 고려하여야 하는바, 피고들이 특히 위 실무의견서에 제시된 ㉢과 ㉣의 단계를 거쳐 최종 확정가치를 산정하였다는 점을 인정할 증거가 없으므로, 위에서 인정한 사실만으로는 피고들이 위즈플러스의 발행주식에 관한 감액손실 발생의 객관적 증거가 있음에도 불구하고 감액이 불필요하다는 명백한 반증 하에 감액손실을 인식하지 아니하였다고 인정하기에 부족하고, 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없으므로, 피고의 위 주장은 이유 없다.

(2) Portion of the bad debt allowance under section

① As to the sales claim of 5,077,000,000 won against the business supporters

The Defendants asserted that the HP technical ability of the business soflus was recognized in a foreign country, and that the sales claim amount for the business soflus is certain when the business soflus are sold to the business soflus Es Es Es., the Defendants appropriated the allowance for bad debt (115,00,000 won) in accordance with the past bad debt experience ratio (3 years), which is not in violation of the accounting standards.

Article 57(1) of the Corporate Accounting Standards provides that bad debt allowance shall be set up as bad debt allowance of 000 won which is uncertain in accordance with reasonable and objective standards, and such allowance for bad debt of 00 won has been set up in full capital for 3 consecutive years, and where collection of bonds has not been recovered for 2 years or more, etc., the allowance for bad debt of 00 won should be set up unless there are circumstances that the security of the bonds in question would be recovered in the pertinent fiscal year, especially if there are certain reasons that the bond would be recovered in the pertinent fiscal year, 00 won should be set up. However, as seen earlier, there is no evidence that the sales performance can be known, 00 won or more, 00 won or more, 00 won or more, 00 won or more, 00 won or more, 00 won or more, 00 won or more, 00 won or more, 00 others or 20 others or 20.

② As to the advance payment of KRW 853,000,000

The portion of advance payment of 365,000,000 won

On December 24, 2004, the Defendants concluded a development service agreement related to the development, production, and business of booby-tra and Kamera mobile phones, and paid 365,00,000 won as advance payment. In 2006, the Defendants received research and development report from boo-tra, and directly produced boo-tra mobile phones according to its research and development performance, and it was expected that advance payment would substitute the development cost from the completion of the development and expected to be redeemed for 5 years thereafter. However, the Defendants asserted that the boo-tra was in the closure of business at the time of 2006, and there was no dispute between the parties that the boo-tra was in the closure of business, and the written statement in subparagraph 8-2 of the evidence 8-2 was received from boo-tra with 2006, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the boo-tra was directly produced with the research and development outcomes, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the boo-tra was not recovered.

Written advance payment of Written 273,000,000

The Defendants asserted that, as seen earlier, business status is a company with technical capacity and there was no problem in operating the business and that there was a continuous transaction with the Kenya, but there is no evidence to acknowledge the above alleged facts, and rather, there is no evidence to prove that the aforementioned facts were in negotiations for sale. Thus, it cannot be said that the failure to identify the advance payment claim against business operators in accordance with reasonable and objective standards is in accordance with the aforementioned reasonable and objective criteria. Thus, the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

B. The amount of advance payment 235,000,000 won for a long period of not less than five years:

The defendants asserted that the company can offset the credit purchase amount against the company by receiving raw materials, etc. continuously from the company concerned. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the above assertion, and it cannot be deemed that the application of the same bad debt rate as the general advance payment is in accordance with reasonable and objective standards for advance payment for more than five years, as the defendants are the persons concerned. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

(3) Insufficient appropriation of inventory assets as losses (82,000,000)

The Defendants asserted that, during the period from 2005 to 2006, the Kenya converting the mobile phone, which is the main product, from GSSM to the CD method, the sales amount was rapidly reduced to 1/3 in the past, and did not have been entered for more than one year, but the inventory assets at issue were the public parts that can be used in both GSS and CD method, and that the said parts were anticipated to be used in the manufacture of cell phones and the exploitation of new markets from 2006, and that it was possible to sell them to the outside at any time. Thus, the Defendants asserted that the low-price method was not applied.

Then, subparagraph 5 of the corporate accounting standards provides that "the inventory value shall be the balance sheet value: Provided, That if the market value is lower than the acquisition cost, the market value shall be the balance sheet value (hereinafter "low price method")." subparagraph 23 of the above provision provides that "if the inventory value falls below the acquisition cost, the value of the inventory asset shall be determined using low price method. The market value of the inventory asset may fall below the cost if any of the following causes arises. (A) If the inventory value is damaged, the inventory asset value may fall below the cost due to (b) if it was not sold or can not be put into the production within the normal business period, (c) if the normal sales market has disappeared or its sales value has decreased due to changes in technology and market conditions, etc., (d) if the sale price of the inventory asset was lower than the price of the inventory asset, it shall be deemed that there is no reasonable ground to find the difference between the sale price and the inventory asset at any time, and thus, it shall be deemed that there is no possibility that the new market value would have been lower than the acquisition price.

(4) An excessive appropriation of the deferred corporate tax assets;

The Defendants calculated net income before deducting corporate tax from the estimated income statement for the five years in the future, and calculated the maximum limit of 20 times as deferred corporate tax assets. ① It is presumed that the contract amount should be supplied to approximately 80% of the contract amount according to the contract amount between Rocom Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Rocom”) on October 18, 2006, and calculated the annual sales amount of KRW 58,103,000 for five years from 207,515,000,000. ② From 2006, 2000, 2000, 200% of the annual sales amount for 20,000,000 won for 20,0000 won for 20,0000,000 won for 20,000,0000 won for 20,0000,000 won for 20,000,000 won for 20,000.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the statement in Eul evidence Nos. 9 and 10, it is recognized that the Kenya entered into a contract with the business Telecom on October 18, 2006 to supply the 185,000 U.S. dollars for four years with the contract amounting to the 185,000,000 U.S. dollars for the contract amounting to the 180,000 U.S. dollars for the business identification meter to be supplied to the NA company in Japan on October 29, 2007.

However, since the Compact recorded accounting losses from 2005, it is in principle identical to the recognition standards for assets subject to deferred corporate tax due to temporary differences in the recognition standards for assets subject to deferred corporate tax for the preceding fiscal year in accordance with the provisions of subparagraph 16 (Corporate Tax Accounting) and subparagraph 28 (where accounting losses have occurred in the preceding fiscal year, it shall be dealt with pursuant to the sentence 31 and sentence 32) of the corporate accounting standards. However, the unused tax losses refer to the fact that the possibility of not generating future taxable income is high. Therefore, even if an enterprise has recorded the latest accounting losses, it should be recognized that the fixed-term sales revenue amount should be included within the scope of 60% of the estimated sales revenue amount of Japan, and that there is no clear evidence that the above estimated sales revenue amount should be included within the scope of 0% of the estimated sales revenue amount of the fixed-term sales revenue amount of the fixed-term sales revenue amount of the fixed-term sales revenue amount of the fixed-term sales revenue amount of the fixed-term sales revenue amount of the fixed-term sales revenue amount of the Defendants.

(2) Defendant 1 and 2’s assertion of negligence without fault

Even if there was a false entry in the business report, etc. or an omission of important matters, Defendant 1 and 2 did not know that there was a false entry in the business report, and they did not know that there was a false entry in the business report, and they did not know that there was any negligence as to the omission of such entry. However, since 2005, Kenya recorded accounting losses, and all of the aforementioned false entries constituted assets and capital items, the total amount of KRW 8,694,00,000 in the business report of 29,232,908,707 won was a considerable amount of 30% of the total amount of capital in the business report of 206, and it is difficult to deem that the above Defendants did not know that there was a false entry in the business report of this case despite having paid considerable attention, and there was no evidence to prove that there was no intention or negligence on the part of the above Defendants.

(3) The assertion that there is no liability for damages on the ground of predicted information.

The defendants asserts that all of the above matters are related to the Kenya compact or predicted information of related companies, and that such predicted information was made in good faith on the basis of reasonable grounds or assumptions, so they do not bear liability for damages.

However, Article 14 (2) of the former Securities and Exchange Act provides that "if predicted information is entered or indicated in accordance with the following methods, it shall not be liable for damages; 1. The entry or indication concerned shall specify the fact that it is predicted information; 2. The basis for the assumption or judgment related to the forecast or prospect shall be specified; 3. The entry or indication concerned shall be faithfully made on the basis of reasonable grounds or assumptions; 4. The statement or indication concerned shall state a warning clause that it may differ from actual results." Thus, the amount of recoverable securities, sales bonds and advance payments, the amount of irrecoverable valuation of inventory assets, the estimated amount of future taxable income, etc. as seen above is related to the accounting presumption. However, it is difficult to view it as predicted information under the above provision, even if it is predicted information, it shall not be deemed to have been entered in the method as referred to in the above subparagraphs, and there is no other evidence to recognize it otherwise, the above assertion by the Defendants shall not be justified.

(4) As to the assertion that the price of the Chyd Telecom is due to a decision to reduce capital

The Defendants, through the resolution of the board of directors on February 20, 2008, published the decision to reduce the amount of 10 shares of the registered common shares of 500 won of the face value of the Kenya to 1 share of the same par value. The Defendants asserted that the price decline of the Kenya is due to such decision to reduce the amount of the Kenya and that it is not due to the fraudulent disclosure of the instant case.

In light of the above purport of Article 15(2) of the Securities and Exchange Act, where a purchaser of a stock claims compensation for damages caused by false statements, etc. in a business report against a stock-listed corporation, etc. based on the provision of Article 186-5 of the same Act, the purchaser of the stock does not need to prove the causation between false statements, etc. in the business report and the occurrence of damages, and if a stock-listed corporation bears the responsibility for proving the existence of such causation, etc., such presumption of causation cannot be made in light of the legislative purport of the above provision.

3. Scope of damages

A. Calculation of damages

(1) Provisions of the former Securities and Exchange Act

Article 15 of the former Securities and Exchange Act provides that "if the claimant disposes of the securities at the market price at the time of the closing of argument or before the closing of argument, the price calculated by deducting the disposal price from the actual amount paid by the claimant in the acquisition of the securities shall be the amount of compensation."

(2) The period of stock transaction with a causal relationship

As seen earlier, the time when the 31st business report of the Kenya was published on March 31, 2007, and the time when the Securities and Futures Commission publicly announced the fact that false entries are made in the instant business report is widely known to the public. Since the Securities and Futures Commission announced the press on February 20, 2008 that it took measures, such as a request for correction of the Kenya on the ground that the Kenya was prepared and publicly announced the financial statements in violation of the accounting standards, the Plaintiff’s damage is limited to the share transaction arising from the stock transaction that was acquired from March 31, 2007 through February 20, 208 by the said business report. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s 60,000 purchased on February 26, 2008 is irrelevant to the instant false publication.

(3) Calculation method of damages

In order to specify the disposal stocks corresponding to the stocks acquired during the period in which causation is recognized pursuant to the purport of Article 15 of the former Securities and Exchange Act, the amount of damages shall be calculated according to the first in the first in the first in the first in the first in the first in order to first

According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 3, the plaintiff held 40,00 shares of Kenya on or before March 31, 2007, 40,000 shares, which were first sold after the above temporary date, shall be deemed to have been purchased before the above temporary date. The 60,000 shares purchased on February 26, 2008 were changed to 6,00 shares after the reduction of capital, and it shall be deemed to have been sold last because they were the most heavily purchased. Since the plaintiff's sale of 10,00 shares sold on July 25, 207 10, 6,000 shares excluding 6,00 shares,00 shares, and 30,000 shares acquired on or before the above 20,000 shares, the total amount of shares sold during the above period was 30,000 won to 304,000 shares acquired on March 26, 2007, 207.

B. Limitation of liability under the good faith principle

In a claim for damages governed by Article 15 of the Securities and Exchange Act, there is no difference in the fact that the basic ideology of the Compensation Act, which is fair burden of damages, applies to the claim for damages, so it is still possible to set off a comparative negligence or limit liability based on the equitable principle, on the ground that the victim was negligent in causing and expanding damages. In particular, considering that it is extremely difficult to estimate when and to what extent a specific factor has influence as the factors are very diverse and multiple factors simultaneously, it is extremely difficult to determine when and to what extent, in addition to unlawful acts such as false disclosure, etc., it may be extremely difficult to prove the occurrence of damages due to such other circumstances in light of the ideology of the compensation system, which is fair apportionment of damages (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da167568, Oct. 25, 2007).

As to the instant case, the Health Center and the Kenya recorded accounting losses from 2005. In addition to the act of false publication of this case, the Plaintiff appears to have affected the occurrence of damages, such as reduction decision implemented by the Kenya for the period of time until the Plaintiff suffered losses after purchasing the shares of the Kenya, or the overall changes in the situation of the stock market, etc. The false publication of this case was not made through the method of appropriating processed assets or manipulating evidential documents, etc.

Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 61,538,730 (i.e., KRW 205,129,100 x 0.3) and damages for delay calculated at each rate of KRW 20% per annum from March 9, 2009 to November 5, 2009, which is the date on which a copy of the complaint of this case, containing a notice to demand the Defendants to discharge the liability for damages of this case, is served.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified only within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Han-hee (Presiding Judge)

(1) Among them, the Market Access Act determines the value of subject to evaluation through comparison with similar securities (the former Act on the Use of Assets, among them, is the method of assessing the value of subject to evaluation by calculating the market circulation based on the past transaction price of shares in the company subject to evaluation). (2) The Profit Access Act is a valuation approach that evaluates future benefits expected from the evaluation and determines the value of subject to evaluation by evaluating the future benefits expected from the evaluation, and can be expressed in monetary amount or cash flow. In estimating future benefits, it is possible to estimate future benefits by comprehensively taking into account the characteristics of the company subject to evaluation, the adjustment of non-ordinary profits and expenses items, the structure of capital, past performance, the industrial outlook of the company, and other economic factors. (3) The Asset Access Act is a valuation approach that determines the value of subject to evaluation by using the net asset value of the company subject to evaluation after deducting liabilities from assets. In applying the Asset Access Act, all assets and liabilities on the balance sheet should be measured as the fair value of the evaluation base date. If sale is premised on sale value, costs related to sale should be considered.