The effect of a securities company without the approval of the Minister of Finance and Economy in the case of a juristic act other than the purpose under Article 2 (6) of the Securities and Exchange Act

A securities company shall not affect the validity of such a transaction even if it concurrently operates the business other than those listed in Article 2 (6) of the Securities and Exchange Act without the approval of the Minister of Finance and Economy.

Article 2 of the Securities and Exchange Act, Article 23 of the Securities and Exchange Act

Plaintiff

Han Interest Securities Co., Ltd. and one other

Seoul High Court Decision 68Na1239, 1240 delivered on August 18, 1972, Seoul High Court Decision 68Na1239, 1240

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendants.

As to the ground of appeal No. 1 by the Defendants’ Attorney

If a securities company concurrently operates business other than those listed in Article 2 (6) of the Securities and Exchange Act, such as the theory of lawsuit, it is necessary to obtain the approval of the Minister of Finance and Economy, and even if it concurrently operates business other than those mentioned above without such approval, it does not affect the validity of the trading act such as this case, and it cannot be said that such judgment in the original judgment is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the company

The issue is groundless.

As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 2, 3, and 4:

Based on the evidence stated in the original judgment, we cannot agree with the judgment that did not recognize the facts of each judgment in the original judgment and the hidden defects in the theory, and each evidence in the lawsuit that did not err in the process of its recognition cannot be determined by the conclusion that there was no illegality in the process of its recognition, and each evidence in the lawsuit that rejected the original judgment cannot be interpreted as the conclusion of the original judgment, so all the arguments eventually result in the criticism of the lower court's whole authority concerning the determination of evidence and the determination of facts, which are the facts, in

As to ground of appeal No. 5

It cannot be said that there is no error of law in the conclusion that the clause of the theory of special agreement was merely a new statement of fact in the court of law, and the court below did not exercise the right of explanation on this point.

The issue is groundless.

Therefore, according to Articles 400, 395, and 384 of the Civil Procedure Act, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Rin- Port (Presiding Justice)