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.(a)

Article 179(1) of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (amended by Act No. 11845, May 28, 2013; hereinafter “Capital Markets Act”) that provides for financial investment instruments (referring to securities and derivatives) provides that “any person who violates Article 178 of the said Act shall be liable for damages sustained by a person who trades or makes any other transaction in financial investment instruments due to such violation in connection with such trading or transaction.”

In addition, Article 178(1) of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act provides that “no person shall commit any of the following acts in connection with the trading or other transaction of financial investment instruments.” The prohibited unfair trading refers to the use of “unfair means, plans, or tricks” (Article 178(1)).

The purpose of this is to protect individual investors' interests and enhance the fairness and reliability of the capital market by regulating unfair trading as well as to protect the fairness and reliability of each investor’s interests (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Do444, Jan. 19, 2001). In particular, Article 178(1)1 prohibits all means, plans, or tricks which are considered unfair by social norms in relation to trading and other transactions of financial investment instruments to this end.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do9933, Jan. 16, 2014). In full view of the legislative purpose, structure, and content of such provisions, whether a certain act constitutes an unlawful act prohibited under Article 178 of the Capital Markets Act in relation to the transaction of financial investment instruments is determined.