Establishment of a stock trading consignment agreement and type, quantity, time and characteristics of purchase and sale consignment stocks;

An investor may not engage in a stock transaction entrustment agreement because he/she did not specify the items, quantity, time, and price of the stocks to which he/she entrusts a securities company with trading, and may entrust the purchase or sale of promising stocks at an appropriate quantity, price, and so on.

Article 2 (8) 2 of the Securities and Exchange Act

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee

Incheon Iron Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Substitute Securities Co., Ltd., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellee and two others

Seoul High Court Decision 78Na1814, 1815 decided December 1, 1978

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant Kim Nam-nam's ground of appeal No. 2 (1) and No. 1 of the same Kim Jong-tae's ground of appeal are also examined.

Examining the evidence adopted by the court below in comparison with the records, the court below's finding that the plaintiffs (including the withdrawing plaintiff 1) paid the above money to the defendant company that operated the securities business by requesting the non-party 2, who was the head of the defendant company's business division, to trade securities at the original date, and delivered each of the above money at the original date, and thereby, paid the above money as a deposit for entrusting the trade of securities at the original date. The court below's finding that the evidence preparation relationship was legitimate even if it was examined together with the above finding.

Even if Nonparty 2, who made a securities investment to Plaintiff 1, said that there is a considerable profit, deposited it into the head of the Tong as the consignment deposit money for the purchase and sale of shares, and embezzled it on the day of deposit, it cannot be said that it was unrelated to the Defendant Company.

The evidence that the court below rejected the judgment of the court below's refusal to believe is merely a collateral method arising from the lending relationship between the plaintiff 1 and the non-party 2. It is not reasonable to argue that the court below's right to evidence preparation and fact-finding was denied.

In addition, it is deemed that the original judgment does not err by misapprehending the legal principles on securities-related statutes.

The grounds of appeal No. 2 are examined as follows.

However, according to the testimony of the non-party 2 and the record verification of the court below adopted by the court below as evidence, the non-party 1 did not have the above 00,000,000 won which was deposited under the name of the non-party 3 (Gu number 1 omitted), and the non-party 2 did not have the above 00,000 won which was deposited under the above 15,000,000 won which was deposited under the name of the non-party 1's account, and the non-party 2 did not have the above 00,000 won which was deposited under the above 00,000 won which was deposited under the above 50,000 won which was deposited under the non-party 1's account book. The plaintiff's statement that the non-party 2 did not have the above 00,000 won which was delivered to the above 50,000 won of the above 1's account book without the consent of the above plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal No. 3 and No. 3 of the same Kim Nam-nam are also examined.

According to the testimony of Non-Party 2, who is admitted as evidence, the court below held that the plaintiff 1 made two of the above non-party 1's own seal affixed to the defendant company on November 25, 197, 29, and 30 of the same month and then cancelled it on December 24, 197, the above plaintiff 1 had 395,000 won again and had 15,000,000 won deposited in the old unit under the name of Non-party 3 (old unit No. 1 omitted), and issued 0,000,000 won to the above non-party 1's 00,000 won to the above non-party 1's 00,000 won to the above non-party 40,000 won to the above non-party 1's 00,000 won to deposit with the non-party 3's 00,000 won to the above non-party 2's 4, and the above non-party 2's 1's 2.

The grounds of appeal No. 4 by Kim Nam are examined.

The judgment of the court below that there is no evidence to acknowledge that the succeeding intervenor acquired the claim for the consignment guarantee money on the original market of the plaintiff non-party 1, while the succeeding intervenor acquired it with the knowledge that there is a special contract for the prohibition of transfer, shall not be deemed to have made a wrong judgment beyond the scope of

The grounds of appeal No. 4 are examined as follows.

The court below stated that the above non-party 2 made a trade consignment to the defendant company by specifying the kind, quantity, time, price, etc. of shares to be traded in the course of trading on behalf of the plaintiffs, the number of shares to be traded is changed at an appropriate time, and if the shares of promising items are traded on behalf of the plaintiffs who requested to purchase and sell shares at a price, the kind, quantity, time, price, etc. of the shares to be traded are specified, and it is not sufficient to say that the business liaison relationship between the defendant company that caused the defendant company to trade the shares is the end of the business liaison relationship within the defendant company that caused the defendant company to trade the shares. In light of the above, the court below's decision that the above non-party 2 entrusted the trade of shares to the defendant company or was established at that time between the plaintiffs and the defendant company is not a trade consignment agreement because the plaintiffs did not order by specifying the issue, quantity, time, price, etc. of shares as in the lawsuit by the plaintiffs and the defendant company, it cannot be viewed that the legal relationship of the trust consignment agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendant company is justified.

The grounds of appeal No. 5 are examined.

The court below found that the plaintiff 1 paid 30,000,000 won on December 24, 197 under the name of the plaintiff 1 to the non-party 1 on behalf of the plaintiff 1 on behalf of the non-party 1, and again paid 30,000,000 won on behalf of the plaintiff 2 on January 14, 197 to the defendant company as a deposit for stock purchase and sale consignment deposit with each of the above contents, and thus, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion that the plaintiff 1 entrusted the purchase and sale of shares to the defendant company (including the plaintiff 1) by stating that the plaintiff 1 paid 30,000,000 won to the non-party 2 on behalf of the non-party 1 on behalf of the non-party 1 on behalf of the plaintiff 2.

The grounds of appeal No. 2 (2) and No. 6 of the same Kim Nam-nam's grounds of appeal are examined together.

Based on the facts established by the court below based on the comprehensive examination of the adopted evidence, the plaintiff 1 was only the first time with the introduction of the non-party 2, who was the chief of the defendant company's business, and there is no special trust relationship with the non-party 2. The plaintiffs requested the above non-party 2 to sell and purchase the securities at the account in the old account under the plaintiffs' name and account. It is only limited to entrusting the above non-party 2 to sell and sell the securities, and beyond the scope of this, there is no evidence that the above non-party 2 did not recognize that the right of attorney to withdraw the plaintiffs' subscription deposit from the old account of the plaintiffs to the above non-party 2 was granted to the above non-party 2. Thus, the court below rejected the defendant's argument that the above non-party 2 delegated the comprehensive proxy authority to trade the securities by the appropriate method of his choice, and it is not reasonable in accordance with legitimate findings of fact, and there is no

The grounds of appeal No. 7 are examined as follows.

It is natural that the non-party 2, who was the head of the business of the defendant company, accepted the entrustment of the plaintiffs' promising items of stock trade and accepted it belongs to the scope of the defendant company's business.

In the purport of the judgment of the court below, the defendant company's legitimate scope of business and the plaintiffs' claims for the performance of the defendant company's liability due to the above entrustment are reasonable. Therefore, the arguments are groundless because they fail to comply with the judgment of the court below or improper reasons.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. 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 Hah- Port (Presiding Justice)