The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul Southern District Court Panel Division.

1. The defendant's grounds of appeal are examined.

(1) As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court, citing the reasoning of the first instance judgment, determined as follows.

(A) The audit report (hereinafter “instant audit report”) prepared by the Defendant after conducting an accounting audit of the financial statements of B Bank Co., Ltd. for the 42-year business year (hereinafter “B Bank”) (hereinafter “B Bank”) by means of the window dressing accounting of B Bank, contains false descriptions as to the equity capital ratio (BIS) and the total assets, the total amount of capital, the net income, etc.

The Plaintiff acquired subordinated bonds of this case with trust, and considering the circumstances that the equity capital ratio and the ratio of bad loans are important matters to be considered when the investors of subordinated bonds make a decision on investment, and the scale of the window dressing accounting, it constitutes a case where false information is included in the audit report of this case.

Thus, barring special circumstances, the defendant is prior to the amendment by Act No. 11845 of May 28, 2013, except in the case of the defendant.

F. The Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act

Article 170 of the former Act on External Audit of Stock Companies (amended by Act No. 10303, May 17, 2010; hereinafter “ External Audit Act”)

(B) In accordance with Article 17, the Defendant is liable for damages sustained by the Plaintiff who trusted the audit report of this case. (B) However, while conducting an accounting audit, the Defendant did not send an inquiry of claims and obligations regarding a small-sum fraudulent loan that was used by B Bank to pretend the bad credit in normal terms. In addition, B Bank did not prepare an application for loan with respect to the above fraudulent loan, and the Defendant did not verify only the computer system (IOS screen and the computerized output data) submitted by B Bank, but did not verify at all the request for loan.

Accordingly, the defendant has been extracted as a sample.