The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

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

1. The basic principle of legal order is to ensure that the exercise of rights and the performance of duties must be in good faith and sincerity.

(1) Article 150(1) of the Civil Act provides that “If a party who is at a disadvantage due to the fulfillment of the conditions obstructs the fulfillment of the conditions against the good faith, the other party may assert that the conditions have been fulfilled, the other party may assert that the conditions have been fulfilled.” As such, the principle of good faith is one of the forms of the principle of good faith.

Meanwhile, Article 52 subparagraph 3 of the former Securities and Exchange Act (amended by Act No. 8635 of Aug. 3, 2007) prohibits a securities company or its executives or employees from impeding the protection of investors or fairness in trading in connection with issuance, sale or other trading of securities, and specifically prescribes the prohibition under Article 36-3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Securities and Exchange Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20947 of Jul. 29, 2008) (amended by Act No. 20947 of the Enforcement Decree of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act).

In addition, Article 4-4(1) of the former Securities Business Supervision Act (amended by Act No. 84 of Aug. 4, 2008) (amended by the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Regulation) which was enacted for the regulation of business affairs in public law provides that securities companies shall take appropriate measures so that customers may suffer fair treatment if conflicts of interest arise.