Plaintiff (Attorney O Tae-hee et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Spah, Attorneys O Chang-moo et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Defendant 2

June 17, 2005

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2003Gahap86683 Delivered on December 2, 2004

1. The part against the plaintiff falling under the following order of payment among the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked:

The defendants shall pay to each plaintiff 219,510,474 won with 5% interest per annum from July 10, 2003 to August 26, 2005, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining appeal and the defendant 1 company's appeal are dismissed.

3. The total costs of the lawsuit shall be divided into two parts, one of which is the plaintiff, and the remainder shall be borne by the defendants respectively.

4. The portion paid with the amount under paragraph (1) may be provisionally executed.

1. Purport of claim

The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff 880,822,229 won as well as 5% interest per annum from July 10, 2003 to the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. Purport of appeal

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff falling under the following order for payment shall be revoked. The defendants jointly and severally pay to the plaintiff 577,318,38 won, and 5% interest per annum from July 10, 2003 to the service date of a duplicate of the petition of appeal of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

Defendant 1 Co., Ltd.: Revocation of the part against the Defendant in the judgment of the first instance, and the Plaintiff’s claim corresponding to that part is dismissed.

1. Basic facts

The following facts may be acknowledged by taking into account the respective descriptions of Gap evidence 1 through 6, evidence 8, evidence 7, and evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9 through 15, 22, 23, Eul evidence 8, 16 through 21, and the results of the examination of the plaintiff himself/herself and the whole purport of arguments.

A. Status of the parties

Defendant 1 Co., Ltd. (hereinafter Defendant 1 Company) is a securities company that aims at the business of securities, stock price index futures, index options trading, consignment sale, etc., and Defendant 2 was an investment adviser of Defendant 1.

B. As to futures and options trading

(1) In the context of stock price index option transaction, according to the criteria and method set by the Korea Stock Exchange, the seller agrees to transfer to the purchaser the right to receive money calculated based on the difference between the price index (the price at which the right is exercised) determined in advance by the purchaser’s unilateral declaration of intention and the price at which the stock price index is actually expressed at the time when the declaration of intention is made, and the purchaser agrees to pay the price.

(2) At the maturity of a certain amount of premium, options include call options that hold a right to live the share price index (KOSP 200 index) at a certain event price, and put options that hold a sale right with the share price index (KOSP 200 index).

In the case of put option, when the exercise price is higher than the spot price index, and when the exercise price is lower than the spot price index, when the put option purchaser gives up the exercise price, the loss is not increased to more than the option purchase price. On the contrary, put put option seller gains the maximum profit from selling put option when the exercise price is lower than the spot price index, and the exercise price is higher than the spot price index.

On the other hand, in the case of call options, the price index of the spot option increases higher than the exercise price, and in the opposite case, the loss is not increased more than the option purchase price by waiver of the exercise of the right. On the contrary, in the case of the call option seller, the price index of the spot option is higher than the exercise price. On the contrary, when the spot price index is lower than the exercise price, the loss is increased, and when the spot price index is lower than the exercise price.

In other words, the purchaser of the option is limited to profit free of charge and loss, while the purchaser of the option is limited to the option purchase price, and the purchaser of the option is placed in the opposite position. In the option transaction, the option is held as an unsettlement agreement after new purchase or sale and without clearing it before maturity, and is liquidated through resale and repurchase according to changes in the market situation before maturity, and the unsettlement agreement held until maturity is settled upon maturity due to the exercise of the above rights.

(3) The option’s trading unit is indicated as a contract, the minimum trading unit is one contract, the price of the option is indicated as points (P), the price of one contract is the amount obtained by multiplying the point by 100,000 won, the observer who purchased the option is entitled to pay the options following the following day and the options seller who sells the option is entitled to receive the options on the following day (i.e., the date of sale and the date of purchase listed in the Schedule of Schedule of Transactions and the date of purchase are later than the actual trading date).

On the other hand, the exercise of rights of stock price index options can be done only on the second day of the settlement month which is the last transaction date.

(4) In the event of purchase of options, the purchase price that was entered in the purchase of options was left out of the deposit amount, and the subsequent price fluctuation is relatively easily known as it is included in the securities valuation value. However, in the event of sale of options, the purchase price and the sale price that was received by the option sale are included in the deposit amount, and any losses incurred due to the option sale are increased due to the subsequent price fluctuation, it is not reflected in the deposit amount, but it is not reflected in the deposit amount. In particular, in the case of sale of options, the sale price that was received is merely an amount temporarily stored in the option seller and is settled at the time of maturity settlement or settlement. If the option sale agreement is held without settling before the maturity date and continues to be settled through a settlement agreement, the option appraisal price is merely a certain amount of deposit according to the option price fluctuation, but it is nothing more than a transaction without settlement or settlement of profits and losses until the maturity date or losses are settled by the account book.

(5) Futures trading is a transaction of giving and receiving money based on the difference between the value of the stock index as determined in advance and the value of the stock index actually shown in the future in accordance with the standards and methods set by the Korea Stock Exchange. There are daily settlement and final settlement. In order to prevent the spread of loss due to the nature of futures trading, the daily settlement is to pay a loss in the event a loss occurs after receiving the profit and making a loss in the event that the profit occurs by re-evaluation at the daily settlement price on the day of the settlement in order to prevent the extension of loss due to the nature of futures trading.

C. Progress of the instant transaction

(1) On July 24, 2002, the Plaintiff opened a futures and options account at the Gangnam Center Branch of Defendant 1, deposited KRW 15,00,00 with the deposit money. On the same day, the Plaintiff purchased put options for August 8, 207 at 1.86 points on the same day, and then purchased 26 put options for 4,836,000 won following the following day (=26 x 1.86 points x 100,000 won x 1.86 points x 1.00 won) and traded 200 won after purchasing put options or put options until September 1, 202, and then sold them to 200 won after reporting and selling gains. However, the Plaintiff did not temporarily incur losses to KRW 33,00,000 and KRW 200 after selling them to 200,000, KRW 2080,000.

(2) Around April 2003, the Plaintiff consulted Defendant 2 on whether it is possible to manage the account at the request of Defendant 1,000,000,000 won. Defendant 2 is able to make a full profit of 3% per month, and in the event of loss of 10% or more, it is possible to suspend the sale and purchase, and in the event of loss of 10% or more, the Plaintiff will suspend the sale and purchase, and to enter the Plaintiff into the subsequent transaction, the Plaintiff entrusted Defendant 2 with an all-inclusive contract for futures and options, and on May 7, 2003, deposited KRW 1,00,000 in the Plaintiff’s account at the Gangnam-gu Center branch of the Defendant Company’s Gangnam-gu Center.

(3) From May 11, 2003, Defendant 2: (a) purchased the Plaintiff’s account’s deposits of KRW 1,000,013,517; (b) sold options on several occasions between May 12, 2003 and May 21, 2003, with the exception of the purchase and daily settlement on several occasions; and (c) sold options at the same time until May 20, 2003, without a large change in the KOSP 200 index; and (d) sold options at the same time with a limited price of put options to the Plaintiff’s account; and (e) sold them at the same time, with a limited price of put options to the Plaintiff’s account to the limited extent; and (e) sold them at the same time, with a limited price of put options to the Plaintiff’s account to the limited extent; and (e) sold them at the same time, with a limited price of put options to the Plaintiff’s account to the limited extent.

(4) Although Defendant 2 had temporarily earned a number of profits at the beginning of the transaction, unlike his estimate, Defendant 2 continued to increase the KOSPI 200 index continuously and approximately KRW 250,000,000 as of June 2, 2003, the balance of deposit was KRW 974,345,377, but the total amount of the balance of the deposit (the total amount of the balance of the deposit received as of the day preceding the base date) was KRW 898,565,37, and KRW 10% and more than the first 60% of the principal was 30.6% of the total amount of the deposit, 106% of the total amount of the 20.6% of the purchase and sale contract, 208.6% of the purchase and sale contract, 30.6% of the purchase and sale contract, 208.6% of the purchase and sale contract, 206% of the total amount of the deposit, 30.6% of 7.6% of 2.6% of the purchase contract.7.7.6%

(5) Meanwhile, the Plaintiff confirmed the transaction details of Defendant 2 every day through the Home Trading System (HTS) but without understanding the exact meaning of the various balance and each numerical value shown on the screen at the time of the transaction, it was harshly erroneous that the balance of deposits exceeds KRW 1,00,000,000, and thus, it would have good investment results. The Plaintiff intended to withdraw the profits, while taking advantage of a large amount of 70,000,000 won from Defendant 2, and then withdrawn the amount after the expiration of July, which was required for the Plaintiff to withdraw the amount of KRW 70,000,000 from Defendant 2. The Plaintiff withdrawn the fee of KRW 75,00,000 on June 13, 200, the amount of KRW 200 at the expense of Defendant 2,00,000.

In addition, on June 18, 2003, the Plaintiff made withdrawal to Defendant 2 at any time, regardless of the number of times exceeding KRW 70,000,00, and made a monthly settlement on the following day after the maturity of each month. The Plaintiff agreed to pay 8% of the excess amount if the excess amount exceeds KRW 5%, 150,000,000, and exceeds KRW 6%, 150,000,000, or more than KRW 7%, 200,000, or more than KRW 7%,000, or more than KRW 20,000.

(6) On July 1, 2003, the Plaintiff anticipated that the balance of the deposit received on July 1, 2003 would be reduced to KRW 937,661,127 on the next day (the balance of the deposit received on July 2, 2003 would be reduced to KRW 900,000,000) and would no longer be assigned to Defendant 2, and the Plaintiff would have purchased 000 points on the following day (the balance of the deposit received on July 2, 2003 would be 897,24,537, which was 00,000 won, 200,000 won, 205,000 won, which was 0,000 won, 00,000 won, 00,000 won, 20,000 won, 05,000 points, 20,000 points, 205,000 points, 205,05,00.

(7) Meanwhile, after settling the total amount of KRW 264,640,000, including the above put option purchase price and the commission, the balance of deposit in the Plaintiff’s account was KRW 632,584,537 on July 3, 2003. Since the above put option purchase price of KRW 632,584,537, there was additional deposit money for the option sale agreement held at the time after the above put option purchase price of KRW 200, the Defendant 2 sold 1,700 out of put options of July 14, 200, the exercise price purchased at the Plaintiff’s order on July 3, 2003, and appropriated the sales price of KRW 23,80,000,000 to the additional put options, the Plaintiff made phone call to Defendant 2 on July 3, 200, and did not raise any objection to the above transaction to Defendant 2.

(8) However, on July 3, 2003, the Plaintiff considered that the balance of deposit received was merely 638,584,537 won, and on July 7, 2003, the Plaintiff discussed the measures to interview Defendant 2 with losses on July 7, 2003. In the process, Defendant 2 heard that the actual balance (total balance assessment) of the Plaintiff’s account is merely 200,000,000 won at another branch of the Defendant Company, and then re-checked it at another branch of the Defendant Company. The total balance assessment is about KRW 80,00,000,000.

(9) From July 10, 200, the day after July 10, 2003, Defendant 2 continued to perform options trading mainly with the Plaintiff’s remaining account. On July 11, 2003, the Plaintiff withdrawn KRW 42,747,027, which remains in the Plaintiff’s account, and withdrawn KRW 1,381,261, which was additionally on July 14, 2003. As a result, the Plaintiff incurred loss from KRW 1,00,000,03,000, which was first deposited in the instant account at the time of the first transaction at KRW 75,003,229, which was the remainder after the Plaintiff’s transaction was completed (i.e., KRW 1,00,003,517,705,7030,7030,717,204,271,2717,2717,2717).

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Defendant 2, without sufficiently notifying the Plaintiff of the risks of futures and options trading, and promises to ensure the Plaintiff’s conclusive interest of 5% per month in inducing and attracting investment short of experience, thereby hindering the Plaintiff from forming a proper awareness of risks inevitably accompanying futures and options trading or actively soliciting transactions involving excessive risks in light of the customer’s investment tendency. ② In the instant discretionary sale and purchase, without considering the Plaintiff’s investment tendency, the Plaintiff’s act of purchasing and selling the same at least 30% of the exercise price per July 11, 2003 and 700 of the exercise price per five (5)-7 months of the exercise price per five (7)-year price per five (700) price per use price per five (70) price per annum, and thus, it was difficult for the Plaintiff to take more than 10% of the total purchase and sale order to prevent losses incurred to the Plaintiff due to the Plaintiff’s violation of the duty to buy and sell options at 20% of the total price per option.

B. Determination

(1) Therefore, as seen above, in light of the following: (a) as to the Plaintiff’s assertion, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff had experience in making a gift and option transaction by itself before requesting Defendant 2 to make a comprehensive discretionary sale; (b) it is difficult to deem that Defendant 2 did not sufficiently notify the Plaintiff of the risk of futures and options, thereby hindering the Plaintiff’s right perception of danger; and (c) there is no evidence to support that Defendant 2 promised to guarantee the Plaintiff’s conclusive interest of 5% per month; and (d) it is difficult to deem that Defendant 2 actively recommended the Plaintiff to make transactions involving danger in light of its investment risk, solely on the basis that Defendant 2 promised to raise the profit of 3% per month by raising the Plaintiff’s investment risk.

② On June 11, 2003, Defendant 2: (a) sold a water call option contract of July 300 with the exercise price of July 82.5, 200 and a water call option of July 5, 200 with the exercise price of July 12, 200; and (b) did not liquidate the above option; and (c) held an option sale agreement continuously without settling the contract; (d) although Defendant 2 violated the judgment on strategic transactions by Defendant 2, even though it was found that there was an ex post facto investment loss, it is difficult to acknowledge that Defendant 2, without considering the Plaintiff’s investment tendency, failed to perform the above duty of due care as a good manager or neglected customer protection duty, did not engage in an option sale that excessively exposes the Plaintiff; (e) did not perform such duty of due care; and (e) did not err in expanding losses by failing to perform liquidation transactions despite the change in option price, to the extent that it did not have any reasonable effect on the part of Defendant 2’s manager’s investment discretion in the process.

(3) With regard to the assertion, in cases where a securities company sold a general discretionary sale agreement with the customer, and the employee causes loss to the customer by making frequent disposable sales in order to disregard the customer's interest and increase the company's business performance by neglecting the duty of loyalty, tort is established as an excessive trading act. However, as seen above, it is difficult to readily conclude that Defendant 2 continued to sell a price of 82.5 June 11, 2003 and a price of 300 call options over July 5, 200 and a price of 700-month call options over July 12, 200, which is the event price of 82.5, and the event price of 5,00-month price as an unsettlement agreement, and the short-term sale cannot be avoided due to the nature of the futures and options trading made on the basis of the final settlement month or to an extent equivalent thereto, and there is no evidence to conclude that it falls under the extent of sale and purchase as alleged by the Plaintiff.

⑤ In addition, according to the above evidence, it can be acknowledged that the Plaintiff could have known about the combination of gold agreements, realization of profit and loss, unrealized profit and loss, combination of fees, purchase price and liquidation/evaluation amount, realization/evaluation profit and loss amount, etc. by type of trade on the same day, through the screen for the evaluation of the time account of futures option which the Plaintiff inquiredd. Thus, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff failed to properly understand the meaning thereof, and it is difficult to view that Defendant 1 failed to make an appropriate decision by preventing Defendant 1 from properly grasping the account status in violation of the customer protection obligation, and therefore, each of the above arguments by the Plaintiff are without merit.

(2) However, according to the above argument No. 4, the above facts and the above facts, first, when the total evaluation value as of June 2, 2003 became KRW 898,565,37 and the first 10% or more of the losses were recorded, Defendant 2, as of June 2, 2003, even though the total evaluation value as of June 2, 200 was unrealized profit and loss based on the option price per se, the total actual evaluation value as of the above unrealized profit and loss continues to occur frequently, and the total evaluation value was not 10% of losses since the plaintiff suffered losses due to the previous option transaction, so it constitutes a tort under the attached Table No. 20,30,70, and thus, Defendant 2, as of June 20, 200, constitutes a tort under the attached Table No. 370, which was not known to the plaintiff's intent to resume the transaction pursuant to the original promise (this constitutes a tort under the attached Table No. 20,37. 20.

Second, when the plaintiff purchased from July 2, 200 the event price of July 2, 200 to Defendant 2, the event price of July 2, 2003, 5,000 contract, it constitutes a tort since the plaintiff puts the plaintiff's specific instructions and purchased at a price higher than 0.5 points, which is the purchase price established by the plaintiff (hereinafter "the second tort").

(3) Accordingly, Defendant 2 is the tort himself, and Defendant 1 is the employer of Defendant 2, who is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages incurred by the Plaintiff due to the voluntary sale by Defendant 2.

C. Determination as to the defendants' assertion

(1) The Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff ratified the transaction corresponding to Defendant 2’s above illegal act without raising any objection immediately after the transaction was conducted by the Plaintiff. However, with respect to the transaction from June 2, 2003 to July 4, 2003, “the first illegal act”, i.e., even if the Plaintiff was aware of the transaction immediately after the transaction, so long as the Plaintiff was in a state that he did not properly know the size of the loss, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff did not raise any objection merely because the Plaintiff was aware of the high-priced purchase of the Defendant 2, i.e., the “illegal act of July 2, 2003,” even if the Plaintiff did not immediately raise any objection, it is insufficient to deem that the Plaintiff ratified the above act, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

(2) Fruits offsetting

However, according to the above facts, even though the comprehensive discretionary trading was prohibited pursuant to Article 107 and Article 208 subparagraph 3 of the Securities and Exchange Act, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement for comprehensive discretionary trading, and even if the loss exceeds 10%, options trading are more likely to be suspended once demanded by Defendant 2, even though the price fluctuation and investment risk exceed 10%, so it is difficult to prevent Defendant 2 from engaging in continuous trading because it was negligent in closely examining the screen of the securities computer network of the Defendant company, or in monitoring it by other methods, even though it was considerably more than that of the spot trading. Since the Plaintiff’s order to purchase large volume of put options and options trading was issued on July 2, 2003, and the Plaintiff’s order to use additional put options trading amounting to KRW 260 million,000,000,000 from the time when it was used as additional deposit, the Plaintiff’s decision to expand the Plaintiff’s total amount of damages and losses caused by Defendant 2’s negligence.

3. Scope of damages.

(a) Loss caused by a tort;

(1) Furthermore, with respect to the scope of damages, the Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff is liable to pay KRW 780,822,229 as a result of the initial 100,000,013,517, excluding the amount actually withdrawn by the Plaintiff, at KRW 880,822,229, excluding the amount actually withdrawn by the Plaintiff.

As seen above, Defendant 2 was legally entrusted with the sale and purchase of the instant futures and options by the Plaintiff until June 1, 2003, and lawfully traded the instant futures and options by consignment after July 7, 2003, since the Plaintiff’s comprehensive sale and purchase consignment, Defendant 2 cannot be deemed as losses, excluding the amount actually withdrawn by the Plaintiff at KRW 1,00,013,517 of the Plaintiff’s initial investment at KRW 200,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000 won from June 2, 2003 to June 2, 200, 200, as the result of the sale and purchase agreement between the Plaintiff and Defendant 2,00,000,000 won from May 11, 200 to June 2, 200, it cannot be deemed as including the amount of liquidation or options from the date of maturity agreement to June 3, 2000,000.

(2) Therefore, the losses suffered by the Plaintiff shall be calculated by calculating profits and losses for each item of gift options trading from June 2, 2003 (attached Form No. 3, Jun. 3, 2003) to July 4, 2003 (attached Form No. 7, 2003, Jul. 7, 2003).

(A) First, on June 27, 2003, the Plaintiff suffered 45,000,000 won in total, including the money listed in Schedule A.(5) with the sale of futures, and on the other hand, the Plaintiff obtained 20,000,000 won in total from the purchase of futures as specified in Schedule B.(5). However, on the other hand, the Plaintiff’s losses incurred from the said futures transaction constitute 21,120,260 won in addition to the fees listed in Schedule B.(6) of the attached Table.

(B) As seen earlier, with respect to options newly traded from June 2, 2003 to July 4, 2003, when the purchase price of the actual payment option computed by adding the fees specified in subparagraph (6) of the attached Table B.(5) to the purchase price stated in the attached Table B.(5) of the transaction statement for each option type of options calculated by deducting the fees specified in subparagraph (6) from the sale price of the corresponding period for each option item, the profits and losses earned by the Plaintiff through the transaction of the relevant option shall be calculated.

(C) Specific calculation details are as stated in the separate sheet of transactions, other than the following, the profits gained by exercising the right to the portion of the purchase agreement of the call options for convenience are stated in the sale price column, and the losses incurred by the allocation of the right to the portion of the call options for convenience are stated in the purchase price column, and c80 listed in the separate sheet of transactions is indicated in the separate sheet of transaction that is 80 exercising price, and c67.5 is indicated in the put option at the exercise price of 67.5.

(D) Meanwhile, as seen earlier, even if Defendant 2 sold or purchased options held by Defendant 2 under an unsettlement agreement or accrued from the allocation of rights or the exercise of rights at maturity until June 1, 2003, this part of the profits and losses are excluded as follows.

In other words, Defendant 2 purchased the above call option 100 contract at June 5, 200 on June 2003, except for the settlement transaction for the above call option sales agreement held by the unsettlement agreement as of June 2, 2003. ② From the exercise price as of June 4, 2003 and June 13, 200, the 300 contract out of June 800 sales price as of June 23, 2003 was excluded since it was the settlement transaction for the unsettlement agreement amounting to 300 contracts sold on May 23, 200, and the 800 contract out of June 23, 200 sales price as of June 12, 200 excludes the above put option sales agreement to 30.6.6.3 of the above put option sales price as of June 2, 203.6 of the above put option sales agreement.

In addition, on July 2, 2003, pursuant to the Plaintiff’s purchase order, the remaining damages except for the part acknowledged as “damage caused by the second tort” out of the damages suffered by the Plaintiff due to the event price of July 85, 2007, which Defendant 2 purchased by Defendant 2 pursuant to the Plaintiff’s purchase order, do not constitute a causal relationship with Defendant 2’s voluntary trade. Thus, this part of the damages are excluded from the amount of damages to be compensated by

(E) Also, even if an option transaction was conducted after July 7, 2003, it constitutes net liquidation at the maturity of 300 contracts sold until June 13, 2003, (2) an option transaction under the option transaction between June 2, 2003 and July 4, 2003, or profits and losses arising from the allocation of rights or the exercise of rights during the above period shall be deemed profits and losses arising from the option transaction during the above period. (1) A loss arising from the allocation of 300 contracts on July 11, 2003 constitutes net trading at the maturity of 300 contracts sold until June 13, 2003; (3) an option transaction at the option price of 1,700 contracts sold from July 9, 2005 to July 28, 2008; and (4) an option transaction at the option price of 1,703.28 months from June 29, 2008 to June 8, 2003.

(3) Therefore, the damages for each option type suffered by the Plaintiff due to the tort No. 1. 1. The damages are identical to the amount indicated in the column for loss on the attached sheet of the transaction statement, and the total amount of damages arising from the above gift and the total amount of damages arising from the above gift shall be KRW 586,91,950. The damages to be compensated by the Defendants shall be KRW 410,894,365 (=586,91,950 + 0.7) considering the Plaintiff’s negligence as seen earlier.

(b) Damage caused by a tort;

If Defendant 2 purchased the above put option 5,000 points from the Plaintiff as instructed by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff incurred damages of KRW 12,120,000,00,00,000, including the above put option purchase price (=5,000 x 0.5 x 100,000) and the commission fee of KRW 2,520,00,00. Defendant 2 paid the above put option purchase price with put option purchase price of KRW 262,00,00,00 (charges 2,640,000).

(3) Therefore, the amount of damages that the Defendants shall compensate is KRW 423,014,365 (=410,894,365 + 12,120,000).

4. Conclusion

Therefore, with respect to each of the plaintiffs 423,014,365 won and 203,503,891 won, which is the amount cited in the first instance trial among them, after the date of the tort in this case, the defendants are entitled to dispute as to the existence or scope of their obligations from July 10, 2003 to July 2, 2004, which is deemed reasonable by the plaintiff, 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act until December 2, 2004, and 20% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment, 219,510,474 won, - 423,014,365 won, - 203,503,891 won, and 200% per annum of the above judgment against the defendants from the next day to the date of the above decision of the first instance, the defendants' claim for additional damages from the above judgment of 250% per annum.

Judges Noh Young (Presiding Judge)

A judge cannot sign and seal by order of judicial research for consideration;