2014Da206624 Compensation for damages

Plaintiff 2, 4 through 7, 9, 10, 14, 15, 16, 18, listed in the attached list of Plaintiffs;

19, 22, 23, 25 through 28, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35, 36, 38 through 41, 43;

44, 46, 47, 50, 57, 57, 59, 60, 61, 62, 64, 66, 68, 70, 72, 73, 75;

76, 77,80,82,83

See Attached List of Plaintiffs 1, 3, 8, 11, 12, 13, 17, 29, 33, 37;

42, 49, 54, 56, 58, 78, 79, 84, 86

See Attached List of Plaintiffs 20, 21, 24, 45, 48, 51, 52, 53, 55, 55,

63, 65, 67, 69, 71, 74, 81, 85

1. A stock company;

2. B

3. C.

4. D;

5. G accounting corporation.

Seoul High Court Decision 2013Na2011476 Decided February 6, 2014

May 14, 2015

Of the judgment of the court below, the part of the judgment below against the plaintiff AI, AK, AL, ASS, AO, AP, AS, AU, AV, AW, AY, Az, AZ, BZ, BC, BD, BD, BN, BP, BP, BP, BS, BV, BV, BV, BY, BY, BY, BY, BY, CA, CA, CE, CF, CF, CJ, CF, CM, CTR, CTR, CTR, CSS, CS, CZ, CZ, DA, DF, DF, DP, DP, DTS, DTS, DB, DB, D, D, DB, EM, EM, EM, ES, ES, EMF, EM, EM, EM, EM, EM, EM, EM, EM, EM, EM, ES, ES, ES, ES, ES, EM, EM, EB, EB, EM, EM, ES,

The appeal by the Defendant G Accounting Corporation is dismissed.

The costs of appeal by Defendant G Accounting Corporation are assessed against the above Defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to Defendant G Accounting Corporation’s ground of appeal

A. As to the first ground for appeal

Examining the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the court below's determination that the causal relationship between the act of the defendant G Accounting Corporation and the damages of the plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiff BF, etc.") stated in the second person list of the judgment below is just and acceptable. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of the logical and empirical rules

B. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

The lower court, based on its stated reasoning, determined that the Defendants jointly and severally liable for damages to Plaintiff BF, etc., and rejected the Defendants’ assertion that Defendant G association’s liability should be more limited than that of other Defendants on the grounds that the scope of joint tort liability cannot be limited as part of the amount of damages due to the minor degree of processing the tort, and limited the Defendants’ liability to 20% of the amount of damages suffered by Plaintiff BF, etc. in consideration of the circumstances in its reasoning.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and records, although the lower court partially inappropriate part of the reasoning, the lower court’s determination that partially accepted the claim against the Defendant G Accounting Corporation by Plaintiff BF, etc. is justifiable, and did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on limitation of liability and thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. As to the ground of appeal by the plaintiffs in the disposition (hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiff AI, etc.")

A. The fact-finding or the ratio of comparative negligence or limitation of liability in a tort compensation case is, in principle, belonging to the exclusive authority of the fact-finding court. However, if it is deemed that it is considerably unreasonable in light of the principle of equity, it shall not be permitted as it is illegal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da6873, Feb. 27, 2004).

B. The court below already announced that the sales amount or profit and loss structure of Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant Company”) has changed by 30% or more, and thus, the court below held that Plaintiff AI, etc. was or could have anticipated the risk of the decline in the stock price of the Defendant Company, and that the aggravated financial status of the Defendant Company was reflected in the stock price even before the Securities and Futures Commission’s announcement of supervision results.

However, in the case of seeking compensation for damages suffered by stock investors due to an unlawful act such as a false description in the business report, the circumstance that the Plaintiff AI acquired the shares of the company known as having a problem in the financial situation or financial status is not an investor’s negligence (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da16758, 16765, Oct. 25, 2007). Thus, the circumstance that the Plaintiff AI, etc. could have anticipated or anticipated the risk of the decline in the stock price due to the change in the sales amount or profit and loss structure of the Defendant company cannot be considered as the grounds for offsetting the liability limitation, or that such circumstance should not be taken into account, as long as the amount of damages such as Plaintiff AI, etc. was calculated based on the stock price at the time of acquisition of the shares.

Except for such circumstances as the negligence set-off or limitation of liability, the lower court’s limitation on the liability amount to 20% for the plaintiffs AI, etc. of the defendant company, B, C, and D solely on the grounds set forth in its reasoning is considerably unreasonable in light of the principle of equity.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to comparative negligence and the recognition of the limitation of liability and the calculation of the ratio thereof, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal assigning

3. Conclusion

The part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant AI, etc. against Defendant Company B, C, and D is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The appeal by Defendant G Accounting Corporation is dismissed, and the costs of appeal by Defendant G Accounting Corporation are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-deok

Justices Lee In-bok

Justices Go Young-young

Justices Kim In-young