Plaintiff (Attorney Noh Sung-jin et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Hyundai Securities Co., Ltd.

November 11, 2010

Busan District Court Decision 2009Da18048 Decided July 14, 2010

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

In the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff shall be revoked. The defendant's account number (number omitted) securities consignment account is confirmed as the plaintiff's account.

1. Facts of recognition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the whole purport of the arguments as a result of the written appraisal by Nonparty 2, the appraiser Nos. 2 through 7, the first instance court's appraiser No. 2, and the fact-finding by the court of first instance.

A. On May 3, 200, the Plaintiff forged the driver’s license and seal under the name of Nonparty 1 (non-party in the judgment of the Supreme Court), who is so blind, and opened the account number (number omitted) of the Defendant Company’s securities consignment account (hereinafter “instant account”) in the name of Nonparty 1 at the original branch of the Defendant Company.

B. On May 4, 200, the following day between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor of the first instance court, via online sales website and telephone, entered the instant account with 284 shares issued in Gangseoland, which were non-listed shares at the time of the first instance court’s independent party intervenor, and the Plaintiff agreed to pay the purchase price to the Intervenor of the first instance court immediately. On the same day, the Intervenor entered the instant account as a substitute for the instant shares, but the Plaintiff did not pay the purchase price, and the Intervenor filed an application for the registration of the instant account on May 10, 200 with the Defendant registered the instant account on May 10, 200.

C. Meanwhile, in addition to the instant shares, 300 shares were replaced by the same shares from the account of a person without a name, and 584 shares were deposited. However, the said shares were divided and became 5,840 shares including the shares listed in the separate sheet (i.e., 584 shares x 10 x 5,000 won and 500 won). Other than the instant shares were 408 shares of dividends and deposits, the said shares were deposited at KRW 27,881,628 as of June 24, 2010.

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff asserts that the instant account was opened under the name of Nonparty 1, a person without permission, but the actual founder is the Plaintiff, and thus, the instant account is deemed the Plaintiff’s account and thus, the Plaintiff seeks confirmation.

(b) Markets:

In this case, unless there is a clear agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant to deny the contract between the nominal owner and to consider the Plaintiff as a party to the contract of opening the account of this case, the Defendant’s intent should be interpreted to mean that the Plaintiff is to appoint the nominal owner as a party to the contract of opening the account of this case (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2008Da45828, Mar. 19, 2009; Supreme Court Decision 96Da32003, Nov. 26, 1996; etc.). In this case, there is no assertion or proof as to the agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the other party to the contract of opening the account of this case cannot be deemed the Plaintiff. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion on the premise that the Plaintiff is a party to the contract of opening the account of this case

In addition, “legal acts against social order” under Article 103 of the Civil Act includes not only cases where the contents of rights and obligations, which are the object of legal acts, violate good morals and other social order, but also cases where the legal acts become contrary to social order because they are legally forced or they are associated with conditions or money prices that are contrary to social order, and where the motive for the legal acts indicated or known to the other party is contrary to social order (see Supreme Court Decisions 9Da56833, Feb. 11, 200; 2009Da37251, Sept. 10, 200). In light of such legal principles, the Plaintiff’s request for the purchase of shares from the Plaintiff and the Intervenor, who purchased shares from the said account under the name of the non-party 1, the non-party 1, a non-party 2, without permission, was attempted to purchase shares from the Plaintiff and the Intervenor’s non-party 1, a non-party 1, to purchase the shares under the name of the other party 1, and the following facts.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Hong Tae-tae (Presiding Judge) Kim Tae-ho