Main Issues
Article 188-5 of the Securities and Exchange Act, the starting point for the "extinctive prescription of claim for damages"
Summary of Judgment
The one-year extinctive prescription of the claim for damages based on the basis of Article 188-4 and 5 of the Securities and Exchange Act shall be calculated from the time when the claimant becomes aware of the fact that the violation occurred, and it shall not be calculated from the time when the judgment of conviction against the offender was pronounced or final and conclusive.
[Reference Provisions]
Articles 188-4 and 188-5 of the Securities and Exchange Act
Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant), Appellant
Plaintiff (Counter-Defendant) (Attorney Gyeong-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellee)
Defendant Counterclaim (Counterclaim), Appellee
Shin Young Securities Co., Ltd. (Attorney Choi Ho-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
Judgment of the lower court
Seoul High Court Decision 99Na29642, 29659 delivered on April 18, 2000
Text
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant).
Reasons
1. On the first and second points
In light of the records, it is difficult to view that the plaintiff filed a claim for damages based on Article 188-4 and 5 of the Securities and Exchange Act, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal by the submission of the complaint in this case. Thus, the first ground of appeal is without merit, and on the contrary premise, the court below determined that the claim for damages based on the above provision was added to the court below and the extinctive prescription under the above Act was completed. Thus, the court below did not err in failing to perform its duty of explanation in relation to the above claim.
2. On the third ground for appeal
The one-year extinctive prescription of the claim for damages based on the basis of Article 188-4 and 5 of the Securities and Exchange Act shall be calculated from the time when the claimant becomes aware of the fact that the violation occurred, and it shall not be calculated from the time when the judgment of conviction against the offender was pronounced or final and conclusive.
Upon examining the records, we affirm the judgment of the court below that the plaintiff was aware of the above violation of the law at the latest, and there is no error as pointed out in the grounds of appeal, and the Supreme Court precedents cited by the plaintiff are different from the case, and it is not appropriate to invoke them.
3. On the fourth ground for appeal
Upon examining the records by the evidence of the judgment, we affirm the fact-finding of the court below, and there is no error in violation of the rules of evidence as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.
4. Conclusion
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Song Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)