2012 Gohap5834 Compensation (as referred to in this paragraph)

1. These **

2. Yellow **

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Han-gu et al.

[Defendant-Appellee]

1. A stock company;

Seoul Central Law Firm

Attorney Kim Ho-sung

2. Alteration*

3. The Vice-Minister of Justice;

Law Firm Han-chul et al.

Attorney Jeong Sung-won

4. Forwarding*

Attorney Cho Sung-sung et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Attorney Park Jae-ho, Park Tae-ho, and a regular number of persons

5. Kim Mada Ma

6. Kim

Law Firm Han-chul et al.

Attorney Jeong Sung-won

7. Periodical**

8.* Accounting Corporation *

Law Firm (with Limited Liability) The fixed rate

Attorney Cho Sang-hoon

May 2, 2013

May 23, 2013

1. The Defendants shall pay to each of the Plaintiffs** KRW 62,926,895, Plaintiff Yellow ** 9,816,325, and each of them shall be 5% per annum from February 18, 2011 to May 23, 2013, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

2. The plaintiffs' respective remaining claims against the defendants are dismissed.

3. One-half of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiffs, and the remainder by the Defendants, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

Defendants each of them* Plaintiffs 129, 395, 188 won, Plaintiffs * 19, 632, 650 won and each of them, respectively.

From February 18, 2011 to the last service date of a copy of the complaint of this case, 5% per annum and from the following day to the last service date of the complaint of this case.

C. By the day of full payment, 20% interest per annum shall be paid.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Status of the parties

The plaintiffs are those who purchased the shares of Defendant A (former Trade Name: Co., Ltd. B; hereinafter referred to as Defendant A) in the KOSDAQ market, and the defendant's change*, Kim Kim, Kim Ma, Kim Ma, Kim Ma*, Kim Ma, Kim Kim Ma- per cent, fixed * the representative director or director of Defendant A, and the defendant*** The accounting corporation is the 18th fiscal year (hereinafter referred to as the " External Audit Act") of the defendant A in accordance with the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies (hereinafter referred to as the " External Audit Act").

1. An external auditor who has prepared an audit report on the financial statements from December 31, 2009 to December 31, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as "209 fiscal year").

B. The fiscal year from July 2009 to August 2009) Defendant A entered into a contract for the development of mining rights, etc. between Company X, CompanyY, Z and W with the company from July 2009 to August 2009, and offered capital increase with approximately KRW 7.69 billion around August 2009, and paid approximately KRW 4.99 billion among them as advance payment to the above four companies, and immediately consumed at will after being returned from the above 4 companies.

B) Defendant A did not account the above advance payment until the end of the fiscal year of 2009. However, Defendant A borrowed * the bond company’s red loaning KRW 5 billion from * 5 billion to 4 companies. The advance payment, which was paid to the above 4 companies, made the same appearance as the normal recovery during the period from October 8, 2009 to December 23, 2009. Accordingly, Defendant A stated the cash and cash assets in the balance sheet in the financial statements of 2009 fiscal year as KRW 6,496,55,593, stated the net income on the income statement as KRW 2,38,273,155 on the income statement as KRW 2,500,000,000,000 from 2,500 to 3,500,0000,000 won on the following day of the fiscal year of 209.

C) On March 31, 2010, Defendant A prepared a business report including the financial statements of 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the “business report of this case”) containing the false 2009 fiscal year, and on the same day, Defendant A * as joint representative director and director in charge of the reporting of the Defendant A, Defendant Kim Jong-soo, respectively signed the business report and published it through the electronic publication system of the Financial Supervisory Service, and Defendant Song *, Kim Ma, Kim Ma, Kim Ma, Kim Ma Ma, * * 1 quarterly fiscal year of 2010 (the first quarter of 2010 fiscal year of Defendant A) (from January 1, 2010 to March 31, 201), Defendant A withdrawn KRW 300,000 to the above account under the name of the company * 200,000,000 won to deposit the same account under the name of the company * 300,000,000 won.

B) Based on this, Defendant A entered short-term financial products in the balance sheet as KRW 6.3 billion in the quarterly financial statements of the 2010 fiscal year, entered the net income per profit and loss statement as KRW 904, 273, 528, and prepares financial statements with excessive appropriation of KRW 6.3 billion in falsity.

C) On May 14, 2010, Defendant A prepared a quarterly report (hereinafter referred to as “instant quarterly report”) including the quarterly financial statements of the first quarter of the fiscal year 2010, which were falsely prepared as above, and on the same day, Defendant Kim Jong-soo signed the business report as the representative director and the director in charge of the reporting, and published it through the electronic publication system of the Financial Supervisory Service, and then published it through the electronic publication system of the Financial Supervisory Service. Defendant changed*, Song *, Kim Ma-, Kim Ma-Ma, Kim Ma-Ma, Kim Ma, and fixed * at the time of the entry.

(c) False preparation and public disclosure of audit reports;

Defendant*** The accounting firm entered into an external audit contract with Defendant A, conducted an audit of the financial statements for the fiscal year 2009, and prepared an audit report for the financial statements for the fiscal year 2009 of Defendant A (hereinafter “audit report of this case”) on February 10, 2010, and stated the appropriate opinion that Defendant A’s financial statements for the fiscal year ending on the same day as the current financial status on December 31, 2009, indicate that “The proper statement is indicated in terms of importance in accordance with the generally accepted accounting standards in the Republic of Korea.” Defendant* The accounting firm submitted the audit report of this case to Defendant A on March 15, 2010, and Defendant A submitted the audit report of this case to the Financial Supervisory Service on March 31, 2010 through the Electronic Disclosure System attached to the Financial Services Commission and the Korea Exchange.

D. Defendant** an accounting firm’s refusal of opinions on the semi-annual financial statements for 2010 fiscal year) Defendant A deposited to the company after borrowing KRW 7 billion on June 29, 2010, which was around the end of the second quarter of the fiscal year 2010, in order to conceal the fact of false and excessive appropriation of the quarterly financial statements for 2010 fiscal year as seen earlier. Defendant A repaid KRW 7 billion to the company.

2) Defendant** The accounting corporation has audited Defendant A’s half-year financial statements (from January 1, 2010 to June 30, 2010) for the 2010-year financial statements (from January 1, 2010 to June 30, 201) and in that process Defendant * The accounting corporation * on April 4, 2010.

2. On June 29, 2010, Defendant A asked Defendant A to explain the purpose of the deposited KRW 6.3 billion and the subsequent financing flow, and Defendant A, with the knowledge that the payment of advance payment of KRW 6.3 billion to acquire the shares of the original stock company C, could be an issue later, and the amount was recovered on three occasions after June 30, 2010 and paid again. 3) On the other hand, Defendant A announced half-yearly financial statements including a half-yearly financial statements on August 16, 2010, and Defendant A failed to comply with the review procedures required in the Korean anti-annual financial statements rules due to lack of the Defendant A’s accounting records and relevant evidence, and expressed the opinion of “not expressing the opinion of refusing to review the financial statements.”

E. Defendant** each accounting firm’s refusal of opinions and delisting 1) against the financial statements of 2010 fiscal year * accounting firm* accounting firm for the 19-year fiscal year (from January 1, 2010 to December 12, 2010) against Defendant A.

31. After the audit and inspection of financial statements, etc., on March 22, 2011, the audit and inspection report was prepared and conducted on March 22, 201, and it was impossible to verify the propriety, etc. of important financial transactions due to the significant vulnerability in the internal transit process of the company. In particular, in the process of acquiring and cancelling shares C, it was impossible to reasonably estimate the substance of financial transactions in the process of acquiring and cancelling shares, and there was no sufficient and adequate audit and inspection evidence that could reasonably be inferred about the appraisal of assets, rights, and possibility of damage, etc., and Defendant A expressed the opinion of "Refusal of opinion" on the ground that he did not obtain satisfactory results by alternative audit and inspection procedures, and Defendant A announced the same day as Defendant ** an accounting corporation's opinion refusal. Accordingly, the Korea Exchange announced the fact that the above reasons fell under the grounds for delisting under Article 38 of the KOSDAQ Listing Regulations, and if Defendant A is unable to file an objection within seven days (based on the date of trading notification).

3) After October 24, 2011, Defendant A’s shares were traded until October 24, 201. Ultimately, the period of suspension of trading was between March 8, 2011 and October 16, 201, and the period from October 17, 201 to October 201.

24. The reorganization period was 24.

(f) Results of supervision;

On December 13, 2011, the Securities and Futures Commission (the Securities and Futures Commission) set aside 20% of the audit fees for Defendant A with the Korean Institute of Certified Public Accountants for the fiscal year 2009 and notified Defendant A of measures to restrict the audit of the audit fees for Defendant A for the fiscal year 2009 fiscal year and 20% of the audit fees for Defendant A, on the ground that Defendant A violated the External Audit Act by neglecting to verify transaction partners with respect to cash and cash assets while auditing the financial statements for the fiscal year 2009 fiscal year.

G. The Plaintiffs’ transaction details of Defendant A’s shares are as shown in the attached Table, and at the time of the purchase by the Plaintiffs, Defendant A’s shares were designated as management issues by the Korea Exchange.

【Unstrifed Facts, Gap’s 1 through 7, 9, 11, Eul’s 1 through 9, Eul’s 1, 2, Eul’s 1 through 6, Eul’s 1, 4, 6, 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The judgment on the grounds of the claim as to Defendant A, Defense*, Kim Kim, Song Ma, Kim Ma*, Kim MaMa, Kim Ma Ma* Kim Ma- per cent, fixed** claim as to the claim as to the claim as to *

According to the above facts of recognition, after the annual report of this case and the quarterly report of this case, which are important matters that may affect investment judgment, contain false statements or indications, or did not state or indicate important matters, the plaintiffs acquired the shares issued by the defendant A, a stock-listed corporation, based on their trust as true, and based on them, and incurred losses due to the decline in the share price. Thus, the defendant A, barring special circumstances, is liable to compensate the damages suffered by the plaintiffs pursuant to Article 162 of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, as the submission of the annual report of this case and the quarterly report of this case *, Kim Jong-, Kim Jong-, Kim Ma-, Kim Ma-, Kim Ma-, Kim Ma, Kim Ma---, Park Jong-young * as the directors of the defendant A at the time of each submission.

2) The time when the plaintiffs acquired shares was already designated as a management issue. Since the time when the plaintiffs rejected the audit opinion on the half-yearly report of 2010 fiscal year, the plaintiffs were aware of the reasons for the designation of management issues and the reasons for refusing to state their opinions at the time of purchase of shares. However, the auditor's refusal to state his opinion contained the fact that the defendant's financial statements were insufficient at the time of the purchase of shares. Since the designation of management issues was known to the fact that there was a risk of delisting in the future, the plaintiffs could already be aware of the possibility of false entry and delisting of the financial statements of the defendant A. Thus, considering the fact that the plaintiffs' purchase of shares became a dispute over management rights and was concentrated around the time of normalization of company operation, the reason why the plaintiffs purchased shares was able to escape from the market price that may arise when the plaintiffs purchased shares, or caused losses due to delisting or delisting, it is true that the plaintiffs could be able to compensate for losses through the claim for damages, since they purchased shares or did not suffer losses due to the plaintiffs' gross negligence.

B) Determination

(1) According to the proviso of Article 162(1) of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act with respect to the non-existence of a transaction causal relationship, a stock-listed corporation, etc. is not liable for damages if the purchaser of securities issued by the stock-listed corporation becomes aware of the fact that there is a false description or representation of a material fact in the business report and quarterly report at the time of acquisition or that there is no description or representation of a material fact. However, the burden of proving that the purchaser of securities knew of such fact is liable for damages (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da92336, Aug. 19, 2010).

Defendant A’s financial statements for the 2010-year financial year of Defendant A** refused the audit opinion by the accounting corporation, and such contents were announced through the electronic disclosure system of the Financial Supervisory Service. The Plaintiffs thereafter purchased Defendant A’s shares, and the fact that the Plaintiffs’ shares were designated as management issues at the time they acquired Defendant A’s shares was recognized as above. However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the aforementioned evidence are as follows, i.e., the refusal of the audit opinion on the financial statements for the 2010-year financial year because it was not sufficient data for the financial statements, and thus, it cannot be deemed as false or corrected. Considering the fact that the Plaintiffs did not reveal the falsity of the instant annual report and the instant quarterly report at the time of the purchase of shares, the Plaintiffs did not use the instant annual report and the instant quarterly report as data for judgment on investment, or entered the instant annual report and the instant quarterly report in a false manner.

The fact that it is insufficient to recognize that the company acquired shares with the knowledge of the fact and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, in a share transaction, one of the most important factors that form the share price, and the business report stating matters concerning the finance based on the financial statements of the company is one of the most objective data revealing the accurate financial status of the company and has a significant impact on the formation of the share price by making it available to ordinary investors. As such, the plaintiffs, who are general investors making stock investments, shall be deemed to have traded the shares of the company under consideration that the business report or quarterly report indicating the financial status of the defendant A, which is the company in question, is duly prepared and submitted, and that the share price was formed based on their belief that the business report or quarterly report indicating the financial status of the company in question, which is the company in question, was duly prepared and published, and the share price was formed (Supreme Court Decision 96Da41991 delivered on September

11. The allegation in this part of this case is rejected. (2) According to Article 162(4) of the Capital Markets Act as to the claim of non-existence of a causal relationship between damages, where the person liable to compensate for damages proves that all or part of the damages sustained by the claimant were not caused by a false description or representation of any material fact, or by an omission of a description or representation of any material fact, the part of such liability is not liable. The following circumstances acknowledged by the aforementioned evidence are as follows: (i) insofar as it was not revealed that the annual report of this case and the quarterly report of this case at the time of the purchase of shares were not reflected in the false statement of the instant annual report of this case and the quarterly report of this case, the price of the shares acquired by the plaintiffs cannot be deemed to have been reflected in the instant quarterly report of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the damages suffered by the plaintiffs were not caused by the falsity of the instant annual report of this case and the quarterly report of this case, even if there is no other evidence to acknowledge that there was no gross negligence or gross negligence in the Plaintiffs’ damages claim of this case.

3) Defendant defense* Judgment on the argument *

Defendant ** The Plaintiff’s annual report of this case and the quarterly report of this case merely asserted that there was no causation between the Plaintiff’s false entry in the annual report of this case and the quarterly report of this case. However, Defendant A’s representative director or director at the time of submitting the instant annual report of this case * there is no counter-proof and there is no causation between Defendant A’s losses as seen earlier 1 and the quarterly report of this case. The Plaintiffs were 0% of the annual report of this case’s annual report of this case’s annual report of this case’s annual report of this case’s annual report of this case’s annual report of this case’s 1 and the quarterly report of this case’s annual report of this case’s annual report of this case’s annual report of this case’s No. 2. The Plaintiffs were 0% of the annual report of this case’s annual report of this case’s annual report of this case’s 1 and the quarterly report of this case’s annual report of this case’s annual report of this case’s No. 2, nor were they were found to have been recorded for Defendant A’s annual report of investment.

B) Determination

(1) According to the overall purport of the statements and arguments in the evidence Nos. 3 and 5 as to the assertion that he/she fulfilled his/her duty of care, Defendant Kim % of this case, Nov. 1, 2009

17. Damage* Acquisition by transfer of the claim of KRW 1 billion against Defendant A from Defendant A, Defendant Kim Jong- per cent, this 2010.

3. The fact that Defendant A was appointed as a director on July 4, 2010 is recognized, but resigned on or before July 4, 2010. In other words, Defendant Kim Kim has already acquired the claim of KRW 1 billion against the Defendant at least four months prior to his appointment as a director, considering that Defendant Kim Kim Kim has had a considerable interest in major financial information from around that time. At the time of the completion of the quarterly report of this case, on May 14, 2010, at the time of the completion of the quarterly report of this case, at the time of the appointment as a director, the number of times used as the basis for the false statement of this case* 6.3 billion won and thereafter * 7.0 billion in all of the above transactions with Defendant Kim Kim Jong-soo at the time of his appointment as the director, and there was no other evidence to acknowledge the fact that Defendant Kim Jong-soo had a considerable change in the content of this case’s business report from 00 billion to 100 billion in total, as well as from 200 billion won in the above.

(2) As to the non-existence of a causal relationship

Defendant A’s financial statements for the 2010 half-year fiscal year were rejected by the accounting corporation. Such contents were disclosed through the Financial Supervisory Service’s electronic disclosure system. The plaintiffs purchased the shares of Defendant A after that, according to the respective statements and the overall purport of the statements and arguments stated in Eul’s 2 and 4, Defendant A’s 19th fiscal year (2010 fiscal year), which was published on November 15, 2010, stated “cash and cash assets” in the 18th fiscal year (209 fiscal year)’s 6,496, 55, 593 fiscal year, which was described as “46, 732, 728 fiscal year,” and that there was a possibility that the plaintiffs purchased shares of KRW 600,000,000 in cash and cash assets of KRW 160,000,000 in consideration of the fact that the plaintiffs purchased shares of KRW 16,206.

However, in light of the meaning of refusing the audit opinion on the financial statements of the 2010-year fiscal year as seen earlier, the time when the false entry was revealed, and the reduced amount of cash assets in the 3 quarterly fiscal year of the 2010-year fiscal year is likely to be interpreted to have leaked the cash assets during the 2010-year fiscal year, and the fact that the aforementioned facts alone cannot be evaluated the same as indicated in the previous 2009 fiscal year’s balance sheet, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiffs alone, while acquiring Defendant A’s shares, did not use the instant annual report and the instant quarterly report as materials for investment judgment, or acquired shares with the knowledge that the instant annual report and the instant quarterly report were falsely recorded, there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise. Rather, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiffs, as seen earlier, who are general investors making stock investment, traded shares with the belief that the business report and the quarterly report showing the financial status of the Defendant A, who is the target company, were properly prepared, submitted, and published. This part of the allegation is rejected.

(3) According to the aforementioned evidence as to the non-existence of a causal relationship of damage, the following facts are found to have been revealed after Defendant A’s stocks were delisting. However, the reason that Defendant A’s stocks were delisting by the aforementioned evidence is due to Defendant***’s refusal of the audit opinion on the financial statements of the fiscal year 2010. However, the main reason was that: (a) KRW 6.3 billion of the acquisition fund of Company C was actually borrowed temporarily from ***; (b) the reason why the acquisition of Company C’s stocks with the temporary borrowed money appears to have been for the purpose of hiding the false statements of the instant business report and the instant quarterly report; (c) considering the above facts alone, it is insufficient to recognize the Plaintiffs’ damages incurred to the Plaintiff due to the falsity of the instant business report and the instant quarterly report; and (d) there is no other evidence to acknowledge that there was no other evidence to acknowledge that there was no reason to prove that the Plaintiffs’ damages incurred due to the aforementioned facts were attributable to Defendant A’s assertion against Defendant 5 per se).

Defendant Song * was registered as a director of the Defendant A around March 30, 2010 in the course of acquiring or merginging Defendant A at the Haju-D Co., Ltd., located in Gwangju, while serving as an executive director, and on March 30, 2010. However, the instant business report should be submitted by March 30, 2010, and thus, Defendant Song * who was registered as the director on the same day is not related to the submission of the business report, and the instant quarterly report pertains to the period until March 31, 2010, and thus is irrelevant to Defendant Song * requested to exclude Defendant A’s executive officers from the list several times after filing a criminal complaint against Defendant A around May 2010, but the Plaintiffs did not request that the Plaintiff be aware of the material facts set forth in the proviso to Article 13 of the Capital Markets Act, which were not related to the submission of the business report. However, in light of such circumstances as the Plaintiffs’ submission of shares, the Plaintiff did not appear to constitute the Plaintiff’s resignation under the proviso to Article 16(3).

B) Determination:

According to the overall purport of evidence No. 1 and evidence No. 1 and No. 6 of this case, * assumed office as director of the defendant A on March 30, 2010, * sent to the defendant A on August 13, 2010, but on March 9, 2011, the defendant changed * The acquisition of the management right of the defendant A between the defendant Kim Jong and D Co., Ltd. on February 10, 2010 and the above 9 billion won was not determined at the time of the above 60 billion won. The defendant transferred * The fact that the defendant transferred 6 billion won to the defendant Kim Jong was recorded at the time of the above 60 billion won, * the fact that the defendant transferred 6 billion won was recorded at the time of delivery * the fact that the defendant transferred 5 billion won was recorded at the time of delivery * the fact that the defendant corporation had taken office as director of the above 1 billion won after the above 600 billion won, or the defendant Gap was found to have taken office * the above Me.

Defendant Kim Jong-Ma was registered as a director from March 30, 2010 to July 4, 2010, but did not participate in the management and did not know of false entries in the business report of this case and the quarterly report of this case. However, even though the aforementioned evidence and the statements in subparagraphs 1 and 2 of Ema are not sufficient to recognize that Defendant Kim Jong-Ma was unable to know of false entries in the business report of this case and the quarterly report of this case, and there is no other evidence to support otherwise. Defendant Kim Kim Ma-Ma's above assertion is rejected.

B. Determination as to the claim against Defendant** Accounting Corporation

1) Determination on the cause of the claim

According to the above facts of recognition, the plaintiffs acquired the shares of the defendant A based on trust and trust as true after the audit report of this case, which is a material fact that may affect the judgment of investment, or which did not state or indicate a material fact, was disclosed, and the price of the shares of the defendant A was reduced thereafter. Thus, the defendant * The defendant * The accounting firm as the accounting auditor of the audit report of this case **, the defendant A, the change **, Kim Ma, Kim Ma, Kim Ma Kim Ma, Kim Ma Kim Ma Kim * * * Ma, Kim Ma Kim Ma Ma--, due * each of them * the compensation for the damages suffered by the plaintiffs pursuant to Article 170 of the Capital Markets Act and Article 17

2) Defendant***’s assertion that there was a determination on the accounting firm’s assertion (1) 1) . Defendant 1** The accounting firm faithfully confirmed cash and cash assets at the time of conducting the accounting audit, followed all the requirements set forth in the accounting audit standards, etc., and determined that there was no need to undergo an external inquiry into advance payment due to the absence of doubt as to the source of funds or further examination. As such, the accounting auditor did not neglect his/her duty of care as an accounting auditor. In particular, it is impossible to recognize the breach of the accounting auditor’s duty of care merely because he/she was subject to supervision by the Securities and Futures Commission. In particular, the accounting auditor was not required for the collection of audit evidence, but for the accounting auditor’s discretion for the collection of evidence, and the external inquiry procedure not conducted by the accounting firm was 0,000,000,000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,000,0000.

B) Determination

(1) As to the assertion that he/she fulfilled his/her duty of care (A) Defendant *** as argued by the accounting corporation, according to the aforementioned evidence and the overall purport of the statement and arguments as to the above evidence and evidence No. 8, an auditor under the title of "the unique limit of the auditor" to the accounting audit standards set by the Korean Institute of Certified Public Accountants, i.e., books, documents, and documents relating to the accounting that he/she has received from the company for audit and inspection. Therefore, the determination of the falsity of documents, such as internal public offering, forgery, or alteration, by the executives and employees of the company, is not within the scope of the audit and inspection of the financial statements. Defendant *** The accounting corporation confirmed that the above source of the advance payment was received from four companies that received advance payment in the course of auditing the financial transaction records for the financial statements of the 2009-year financial year by comparing the financial statements of the company * the fact that the above advance payment was made through the audit and inspection of the financial statements of the defendant 2 * the financial statements of the defendant *.

(B) In performing the audit of a stock company pursuant to the Act on External Audit, an auditor has a duty of care to prevent interested parties from suffering from a failure to express their opinions on the financial statements of the company subject to audit (Articles 1 and 5(1) of the Act on External Audit and Inspection), and Article 5(2) of the Act on External Audit and Inspection, an auditor shall be determined by the Korean Institute of Certified Public Accountants, and the standards for accounting audit prepared accordingly are generally reasonable and reasonable, and such standards for accounting audit are generally accepted as fair and reasonable. Thus, the main criteria for determining whether the auditor breached his/her duty of care. Thus, Defendant * * an accounting corporation's fulfillment of duty of care as an auditor can also serve as the main criteria for the standards for accounting audit.

However, according to Gap evidence No. 8, with respect to 1. 240's liability for auditors for irregularities and errors, (1) an auditor shall take into account the risks of material distortions by fraud and mistakes when planning and conducting an audit and assessing the results, and (3) an auditor shall carry out an audit procedure appropriate for determining whether financial statements are actually distorted or not (3. 2) an auditor shall obtain reasonable and adequate audit evidence to derive reasonable conclusion that would serve as the basis for the formation of his audit opinion; (2) an auditor shall obtain more than 60's opinion if he/she fails to obtain sufficient and appropriate evidence for such audit; (3) an auditor's opinion shall be ordered to be given up to 80's opinion if he/she finds that there is a possibility that the financial statements will be material distorted due to fraud or error; and (4) an auditor's opinion that there is sufficient and adequate possibility of obtaining more than 5's opinion on such audit and inspection procedures, including (1. 2. 3) an inquiry about the existence of the audit and inspection report and evidence.

Until five days, the advance payment of KRW 4,99,050,000,000,000 paid four times for five days (three days if the advance payment was made on August 15, 2009 and on August 16, 2009, on a legal holiday) was made to four enterprises with no previous transaction. This seems to be a pro rata transaction in consideration of the financial structure or operating income amount of Defendant A at the time. ② Furthermore, the advance payment of KRW 4,99,050,000,000,000,000,000,000, excluding KRW 100 million, out of the advance payment of KRW 4,99,000,000,000,000, excluding KRW 100,000,000,000,000 for the last day of the year of 209 to December 23, 209).

In light of the fact that Defendant A’s total asset amounting to KRW 5.999,267,831, the amount of the above advance payment and the certificate of deposit was a considerable amount of money, and the amount of the above advance payment and the certificate of deposit was more than 39,267,81 won, considering that Defendant A’s total asset amounting to KRW 5.99,429,141, the total asset amount on the balance sheet of the fiscal year 2008, and the cash and cash assets amounting to KRW 39,267,831, and Defendant *********, despite the aforementioned exceptional circumstances, did not take any other measures to verify whether the corporation received the actual advance payment, the details of the payment and return, the source of the fund, etc., other than the fact that the former representative director embezzled about KRW 1.5.8 billion in the accounting report in 208.

Defendant * The above argument by the accounting corporation is rejected. (2) With respect to the assertion that there is no transaction causation

Defendant A’s financial statements for the 2010 half-year financial year were rejected by the Financial Supervisory Service. The plaintiffs purchased shares of Defendant A through the electronic public disclosure system, and the plaintiffs were officially announced on November 15, 2010. The items of “cash and cash assets” in the 19th period (2010 fiscal year) quarterly balance sheets and the 18th (209 fiscal year) financial statements were stated as “6, 496, 55, 593 won” before the 19th (2010 fiscal year) financial statements, and it is reasonable to accept the Plaintiffs’ opinion that there was no other evidence that there was lack of evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiffs traded shares of this case 60 billion won or less than the 60 billion won financial statements of this case before the 2010 fiscal year (2010 fiscal year) financial statements of this case. However, it is reasonable to acknowledge the Plaintiffs’ opinion that there was no other evidence to acknowledge the Plaintiffs’ assertion that there was no false financial statements of this case 3 billion won or less than the 60000 billion financial statements of this case.

(4) The facts acknowledged prior to the assertion that the Plaintiff is an malicious investor under Article 170(1) of the Capital Markets Act are insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiffs purchased the shares of Defendant A with the knowledge of the false description in the instant business report, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise. Defendants **’s above assertion is rejected.

3. Scope of damages.

A. Calculation of damages

If liability for damages under Article 162(1) of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act or liability for damages under Article 170(1) of the said Act is to be the amount calculated by deducting the disposal price if the shares were disposed of from each acquisition price before the date of closing the argument in this case, and the market price (or the estimated disposal price if there is no market price available) if the shares were not disposed of before the date of closing the argument in this case (see Articles 162(3) and 170(2) of the said Act).

The facts that the plaintiffs' transaction details of the shares of the defendant A are as shown in the attached Table, and the facts that the shares of the defendant A were delisting after transacted until October 24, 2011 are as shown above. According to the evidence No. 5, the closing price of the shares of the defendant A was seven won per share on October 24, 201. Since the closing price of the shares of the defendant on October 24, 2011 is confirmed to be the estimated disposal price as of the date of closing the argument, the amount of damages of the plaintiffs due to the transaction of shares is confirmed as shown in the attached Table No. 125,853,790 in the case of the plaintiff * 125,853,790 in the case of the plaintiff * 19,632,650 in the case of the plaintiff *

(b) Limitation of liability;

In a claim for damages governed by Articles 162 and 170 of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, the basic ideology of the Act on the Compensation for Damages, i.e., fair burden of damages, is applicable, barring any difference from other lawsuits for damages, it is still possible to set off negligence or limit liability based on the equitable principle, on the ground that there is negligence that the victim contributed to the occurrence and expansion of damages. In particular, considering that there is extremely diverse and multiple factors at the same time, it is extremely difficult to judge when certain factors have a influence on certain degree, it is extremely difficult to determine when to what extent, in addition to the illegal act, such as false disclosure, etc., it may be deemed that there was an impact on the occurrence of damages, but it is extremely difficult to prove the daily amount of damages caused by such other circumstances in light of the principle of fair apportionment of damages (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 196Da16675, Jun. 6, 207). 207>

In addition to the false statement of the instant audit report, this case’s business report, this case’s quarterly report, and this case’s audit report, it appears that the Plaintiffs had affected the occurrence of loss even during the period of loss from the purchase of Defendant A’s shares to the time of the overall changes in the situation of the stock market, etc., and the Plaintiffs had already been designated as management issues for the purpose of obtaining an earning rate exceeding the earning rate of return on the average stock market, and even after the rejection of the audit opinion on the annual financial statements of 2010 fiscal year, even if they had purchased shares after the rejection of the audit opinion on the semiannual financial statements of 2010, it is reasonable to limit the Defendants’ liability to 50% of the amount of damage suffered by the Defendants to

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the Defendants are obligated to pay to each of the plaintiffs ** 62,926,895 won ( = 125,853,790 won x 50% x 50%) * 9,816,325 won ( = 19,632,650 won x 50%) to the plaintiffs * as they seek, and as they seek, to dispute about the existence and scope of the Defendants' obligations from February 18, 201 to May 23, 2013, which is the date the judgment of this case is rendered, 5% per annum under the Civil Act until May 23, 2013, and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, each of the plaintiffs' claims against the defendants is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and each of the remaining claims is without merit, and it is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Dong-dae

Judges Kim Gin-tae

Delay of Judge Draft

A person shall be appointed.