The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2

A. As to the Plaintiff’s claim for damages against the Defendant under Article 170(1) of the former Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (amended by Act No. 12383, Jan. 28, 2014; hereinafter “former Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act”) and Article 17(2) of the former External Audit of Stock Companies Act (amended by Act No. 12148, Dec. 30, 2013; hereinafter “former External Audit Act”), the lower court determined that the Defendant neglected to perform its duties as an auditor by failing to discover the window dressing financial statements of A (hereinafter “A”), after comprehensively taking into account the facts as indicated in its reasoning, the Defendant neglected to collect and confirm adequate evidence at the time of conducting external audits on the 9th and 10th financial statements of A (hereinafter “A”).

B. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the standard of determining whether an auditor was negligent in performing audit duties and by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 3

A. The liability of an auditor for damages under Article 170(1) of the former Capital Markets Act and Article 17(2) of the former External Audit Act is recognized in cases where an auditor intentionally or negligently failed to enter important matters in an audit report or makes a false statement in an audit report, as well as where an auditor fails to enter important matters or makes a false statement.

B. As stated in its reasoning, the lower court erred by the Defendant’s negligence on the audit report on A’s 9 and 10 financial statements.