[1] A party to a financial transaction contract after the implementation of the real name financial transaction system (=titled person)

[2] The scope of a customer's property loss caused by voluntary trade by employees of a securities company

[3] The method of assessing shares held by a customer prior to voluntary sale in calculating the amount of loss incurred by a customer in the course of voluntary sale by employees of a securities company

[1] Article 3(1) of the former Act on Real Name Financial Transactions and Confidentiality (repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda to the Act on Real Name Financial Transactions and Confidentiality, Act No. 5493, Dec. 31, 1997) (see Article 3(1) of the current Act on Real Name Financial Transactions and Confidentiality); Articles 105 and 702 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 393, 750, and 763 of the Civil Act / [3] Articles 393, 750, and 763 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 95Da5986 delivered on April 23, 1996 (Gong1996Sang, 1575), Supreme Court Decision 99Da67031 delivered on March 10, 200 (Gong2000Sang, 948) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 2002Da12659 Delivered on January 26, 2006 / [2] Supreme Court Decision 98Da3963 delivered on November 10, 200 (Gong2001Sang, 6) Supreme Court Decision 203Da49542 delivered on December 26, 2003 (Gong204Sang, 2004Sang, 207Da126301 delivered on October 26, 2005) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 2007Da123974 delivered on October 16, 2004

Plaintiff 1 and two others

Plaintiff 4

Hanyang Securities Co., Ltd. (Attorney Kim Shin-ok, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2003Na71145 delivered on July 22, 2004

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal between plaintiffs 1, 2, and 3 and the defendant are assessed against the defendant, while the costs of appeal between plaintiffs 4 and the defendant are assessed against plaintiffs 4.

1. We examine the defendant's grounds of appeal.

A. Even if an emergency financial and economic order on Real Name Financial Transactions and Confidentiality (repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda to the Act on Real Name Financial Transactions and Confidentiality, Act No. 5493, Dec. 31, 1997) and a person intending to make a transaction with a financial institution after the enforcement of the Act on Real Name Financial Transactions and Confidentiality, he/she shall, in principle, participate directly in a resident registration certificate and seal impression, and make a transaction in his/her own name; and even if an agent is permitted to make a transaction in his/her own name with his/her resident registration certificate and seal impression, the financial institution shall, unless there is an express or implied agreement between the contributor and the financial institution to assign the contractual claims to the contributor who is not the nominal owner and to recognize the nominal owner as a contracting party, and thus, the nominal owner shall be the contracting party (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Da5986, Apr. 23, 199; 300Da97, Mar. 16, 2006).

In light of the above legal principles and the records, the court below is just in finding that the account holder with respect to plaintiffs 1, 2, and 3 was the same as the plaintiffs on the ground that the above special circumstances are not recognized, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of facts against the rules of evidence or misunderstanding of legal principles as to

B. Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the court below is just in finding that Nonparty 1, who had been an employee of the defendant, arbitrarily purchased the shares of the above plaintiffs as stated in its reasoning, and there is no error of law such as misconception of facts due to violation of the rules

C. Property damage caused by a tort refers to the difference between the property disadvantage caused by an illegal harmful act, i.e., the property condition that existed without the tort and the property condition after the tort occurred. Therefore, in a case where a voluntary sale of shares is sought based on the premise that the tort is a tort, the difference between the balance of the shares and deposits of the customer before the voluntary sale and the balance of the shares and deposits held at the time when the customer files the issue of the voluntary sale should be deemed as property damage. In this case, the appraisal of shares held by the customer prior to the voluntary sale should be determined based on the market price of shares at the time of the voluntary sale, and if the price of shares was calculated thereafter, it should be based on special circumstances, and if there were additional damages, the customer could have known or known such special circumstances at the time of the disposal of shares, and the customer could have clearly acquired profits from the sale of shares at the time of the price of shares at the time of the voluntary sale (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Da16660, Apr. 26, 1996).

In light of the above legal principles and the records, the court below found facts based on the adopted evidence, and found the amount of damages calculated by deducting the balance assessment value of stocks acquired by operating the above sale price as of June 14, 2001 from the sale price calculated based on the market price of stocks at the time of voluntary sale by each of the above plaintiffs as of June 14, 201. There is no error of law such as misconception of facts against the rules of evidence, misunderstanding of legal principles as to methods of calculating the amount of damages caused by voluntary sale by employees of securities companies,

D. The fact-finding or the determination of the ratio of comparative negligence is not so unreasonable in light of the principle of equity as to the fact-finding as to the grounds for comparative negligence. In light of the records, the court below's measure to limit the defendant's liability to 70% for reasons as stated in its holding is just, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of the legal principles as to comparative negligence as

2. We examine Plaintiff 4’s grounds of appeal.

In light of the above legal principles and records on the determination of contracting parties under the financial real name system, it is just to determine that there was an explicit or implied agreement between the defendant and the non-party 2, who is not the plaintiff 4, on the basis of the account opening circumstance and management method of the plaintiff 4 after recognizing the facts as stated in its reasoning based on the relevant employment evidence, and that there was an explicit or implied agreement between the defendant and the non-party 2, who is not the plaintiff 4, on the part of the non-party 2, on the part of the plaintiff 4, on the part of the non-party

The plaintiff 4 asserts that even if the above agreement was made by the interpreter and the non-party 2 should be viewed as the account holder, if the plaintiff 4, who is the account holder, claims the right, the defendant, a financial institution, cannot refuse to accept it on the ground that the actual account holder exists separately, but it cannot be accepted as an independent argument.

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jeon Soo-ahn (Presiding Justice)