Han Lan Investment Securities Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Square, Attorneys Kim Shin-kn et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Financial Services Commission (Law Firm Yang Hun-Ga, Attorneys Kim Sun-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

November 18, 2015

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2013Guhap65090 decided February 5, 2015

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s disposition of imposing a penalty surcharge of KRW 2,00,000,000 against the Plaintiff on October 10, 2013 is revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this court's decision is as follows: Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the dismissal of the following matters among the judgment of the court of first instance and addition of the judgment of the following items.

In ○○ four pages, the following three lines are replaced by “(11845, May 28, 2013; hereinafter “Capital Markets Act”).”

○ 15 pages 15, the first action “determined” is regarded as “predetermined to be determined.”

2. Additional determination

Even if there is a false entry or omission in the instant registration statement with respect to cash and cash assets, etc., in order to impose penalty surcharges on the Plaintiff, the act of violation must be recognized as intentional or gross negligence (Article 430(1) of the Capital Markets Act).

As seen earlier, the Plaintiff participated in the public offering of the instant securities as a joint supervising company, and the fact that the “matters concerning public offering or sale in Part I” of the instant registration statement / Ⅳ. The underwriter’s opinion (Analysis’s evaluation opinion) stated five employees as a joint supervising company’s actual inspector, but it is not sufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff had “an intention or gross negligence” in light of the Plaintiff’s status and role under the instant underwriting agreement as seen earlier, the time of the Plaintiff’s participation in the public offering of the instant securities, etc., and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

The instant disposition is also unlawful in this respect.

3. Conclusion

The judgment of the first instance is justifiable. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Judges Ansan-chul (Presiding Justice)