{"caseNo": "2014Ma2239", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "The independent reading addresses personal information and even professional secrets, but the central question of the criteria for refusing to submit internal documents is the same."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings held that one must not determine the matter based on the mere form of an internal document, but must objectively weigh factors such as the purpose of preparation and the nature of the information."}, "factors": {"same": false, "note": "The nature of the information and the disadvantage of submission overlap, but the first reading places weight on disclosure to the outside, the right of inspection, and the protective value of secrets, whereas the independent reading places weight on the purpose of preparation, the circumstances of possession, and substitute materials."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks about the possibility of partial submission of mixed documents, while the independent reading asks about the degree to which the disadvantage of disclosure takes precedence over the benefit of ascertainment of the truth."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a001", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2002Do4229", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask what criteria govern recognition of intent (breach of trust intent) where a loss arises from a business judgment."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings understood that intentional conduct undertaken with awareness of profit acquisition and loss is required, and that loss or negligence alone is insufficient."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The circumstances and motives of the business judgment, the nature of the business, the economic situation, and the probability of loss and profit all coincide."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks about the weight of particular circumstantial evidence, namely personal ties and opposition by the working-level staff, while the independent reading asks about the boundary between intent and negligence where risk was recognized while expecting profit."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "Since the source text presents both the requirement for recognizing intent, namely intentional conduct, and a comprehensive examination of all circumstances, the first reading may focus on the requirements and the independent reading on the method of determination."}, {"axis": 7, "note": "Since the source text explains the method of proving the intent of a defendant who denies mens rea through circumstantial evidence, the first reading may read out the prosecutor's burden of proof, and the independent reading may note the absence of any express identification of the responsible party."}], "batch": "a001", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2013Do2511", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Although the independent reading also encompasses written investigation and constitutionality, the central question is the same: the admissibility of evidence of sealed testimony and printouts of electronic information."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings understood that the admissibility of evidence of unlawful sealed testimony is denied, and that identity and integrity are required for printouts of electronic information."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "Four of the five elements overlap: the grounds for the prohibition of disclosure, the integrity of the original, the reliability of the machines and programs, and the written investigation procedure."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks about the standard of proof for recognizing integrity through comparison by the court alone, while the independent reading asks about the scope of cases in which proof by a written hash value confirmation is markedly difficult."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 7, "note": "Since the source text explains the method of proof for the evidentiary use of seized electronic information, the first reading may read out the prosecutor's burden of proof, and the independent reading may note that the responsible party was not directly designated."}], "batch": "a001", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2021Da262905", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Although the independent reading also encompasses the calculation of the amount of loss, the question is the same: assessing adequate causation in damages arising from tax reduction advertisements."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings understood, in substance, that a legal and normative adequate causation suffices, and that where proof of the amount of loss is difficult, calculation based on circumstantial evidence is possible."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The probability of the result occurring, the nature of the unlawful act and the infringed interest, and the effect on contract execution and price determination overlap, with the central elements matching in more than half."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks about the scope in which failure to verify may be reflected in the calculation of the amount of loss separately from comparative negligence (offsetting plaintiff's fault), while the independent reading asks about the specific amount of damages to be determined by reflecting the circumstances including that failure."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "Since the source text sets out the standard of proof for adequate causation and the preconditions for calculating the amount of loss while also requiring a totality of circumstances of circumstantial evidence, it may be read differently depending on whether greater weight is placed on states requirements or totality of circumstances."}, {"axis": 6, "note": "Since the source text contains both the general tort (unlawful act) legal principle and the explanation of normative causation under the Act on Fair Labeling and Advertising, the first reading may focus on the latter's statement of the standard, and the independent reading on the application of the general legal principle."}, {"axis": 7, "note": "Since the source text discusses the plaintiff's proof of causation and the amount of loss, the first reading may read out the burden of proof of the claiming party, and the independent reading may be understood as explaining only the standard and method of proof."}], "batch": "a001", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2014Du9349", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask whether the exercise of a claim may be restricted where an information disclosure request constitutes a manifest abuse of rights."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings recognize manifest abuse of rights as an exception to the principle of broad disclosure and link the purpose of monetary gain or avoidance of forced labor to that determination."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The absence of any intention to use the information, unjust enrichment, harassment of public officials, and monetary gain through litigation costs all overlap."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask whether abuse of rights may be recognized even where actual use of the information and the purpose of unjust enrichment appear together."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 6, "note": "Since the source text sets out the exception standard for manifest abuse of rights without clarifying its relation to precedent, the first reading may focus on the presentation of a new standard, and the independent reading on the absence of grounds for confirming the relation to precedent."}], "batch": "a001", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "99Du5870", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask whether statutory prior notice and the opportunity to submit opinions may be omitted through prior notice under administrative guidance and a voluntary promise to close the mine."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings understood that, absent a statutory exception, omission of the procedure is unlawful, and that prior notice and a promise to close the mine alone do not establish an exception."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "Although the first reading also includes the matters to be notified, the exception grounds for omitting the hearing of opinions and the central elements of prior notice and the promise to close the mine overlap."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks whether the illegality of the original acceptance and the unavoidability of revocation constitute an exception, while the independent reading generally asks about the additional circumstances necessary to establish the exception."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 6, "note": "The explanation in the source text concerning the exception for omitting the procedure may be read as stating a new standard, but it may also be read as cannot be confirmed in that its relation to precedent is not expressly stated."}], "batch": "a002", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2023Do8752", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Although the independent reading also encompasses the enforcement procedure as a whole, the central question of both readings is whether a warrant or a copy may be reused after enforcement has been completed."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "The first reading emphasizes the illegality of the specific seizure and reversal, and while the independent reading describes the procedure in detail, the essential point is the same: loss of effect of the warrant and the prohibition on re-searching copies."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The validity period of the warrant and the meaning of completion of enforcement, the handling of copies retaining irrelevant information, and the notice exception for guaranteeing the right to participate overlap as central elements."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks about the admissibility of evidence of secondary evidence, such as statements derived from the unlawful seizure, while the independent reading asks about the point in time at which execution of a warrant is completed."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "If emphasis is placed on the general legal principles in the source text concerning the effect of the warrant, the handling of electronic information, and the right to participate, it may be read as states requirements; if emphasis is placed on connecting these to the partial reversal and remand of the disposition, it may be read as Application to the facts."}], "batch": "a002", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2022Do8662", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Although the first reading focuses on seized cash of other victims, both readings ask whether the object of confiscation is limited to the charged criminal facts and the property damaged thereby."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings understood that confiscation and additional collection (confiscation of criminal proceeds) are permitted only where, limited to property damaged by the charged criminal facts, recovery of the loss of the relevant victim is markedly difficult."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "Although there are differences in the legal grounds emphasized, the central elements overlap: the charged criminal facts, property derived from the victim thereof, and the marked difficulty of recovery of the loss."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks about the method of specifying the object of confiscation from cash commingled with proceeds of other offenses, while the independent reading asks about the specific criteria for satisfying the requirement that recovery of the loss is markedly difficult."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 6, "note": "The portion of the source text deriving the limiting requirement by synthesizing the purpose of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Confiscation and Return of Property Acquired Through Corrupt Practices and the return procedure may be read as a new standard, while the portion emphasizing the principle that the court may not adjudicate beyond the charges and the request (ne eat ultra petita partium) and the relevance of confiscation to the charged facts may be read as application of existing legal principles."}], "batch": "a002", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2020Mo735", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask whether electronic information on a remote server may be seized under a warrant stating only the stored information of the information processing device at the place to be searched."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Although the first reading also mentions the specific disposition and the outcome of the reappeal, both readings understood that electronic information on a remote server must be separately specified in the warrant."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings commonly cite the location and manager and capacity of the storage medium, the method of seizure through remote access, and the difference between the information acquired and the degree of infringement of fundamental rights."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks whether the same server may be seized after obtaining a new warrant under a separate proviso, while the independent reading asks how specifically information on a remote server must be specified in the warrant."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 6, "note": "If emphasis is placed on the requirement of separate specification for information on a remote server in the source text, it may be read as a new standard; if emphasis is placed on its basis, namely the strict interpretation of the wording of the warrant and the principle of due process, it may be read as application of existing legal principles."}], "batch": "a002", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2019Mo3526", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask whether, where the warrant contents were not shown despite a specific request for confirmation at the time of seizure, subsequent confirmation by counsel alone can render the seizure lawful."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings construed that the court below erred in that it did not determine the lawfulness of the presentation of the warrant at the time of seizure and instead recognized lawfulness solely on the basis of subsequent confirmation by counsel."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings cite as key circumstances the party's specific request for confirmation, the non-presentation of the portion setting forth the criminal facts, and the subsequent confirmation of the warrant by counsel."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask to what extent the warrant contents must be shown where the party made no specific request for confirmation."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 6, "note": "In that the original applied the duty to present a warrant under the Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Act to the facts of the case, it may be read as following the established legal principle, but since the relationship to precedent is not made explicit, it may also be read as cannot be confirmed."}], "batch": "a002", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2018Do7658", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "The independent reading also encompasses other issues, but shares the legal question of distinguishing a joint principal offender from an accomplice by aiding."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings share the thrust of the requirements for the constitution of a joint principal offender, the distinction from an accomplice by aiding, and, under certain conditions, the recognition of facts of aiding without amendment of the indictment."}, "factors": {"same": false, "note": "Status and role, as well as the content of the encouragement, overlap, but the first reading places weight on tolerance of the offense and awareness of the possibility, while the independent reading places weight on living environment, right of defense, and mental capacity, so that more than half does not substantially overlap."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask about the degree of concrete involvement and role needed to recognize the relationship of mutual use underlying joint principal offenders by conspiracy."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "Because the original presents the general requirements for joint principal offenders and accomplices by aiding and the like, while containing a disposition of appeal dismissed, the first reading may focus on concrete application, and the independent reading may focus on the explanation of the requirements."}, {"axis": 7, "note": "Because the original expressly states proof beyond reasonable doubt and, where proof is insufficient, the benefit to the defendant, the first reading may draw out the prosecutor's burden of proof, while the independent reading may note the point that the party bearing the responsibility is not expressly identified."}], "batch": "a003", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2017Du74320", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "The independent reading addresses the effect of the transitional provision as well, but the common central question is whether the building report for a de facto road may be refused on public interest grounds."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings read the refusal of acceptance based on serious public interest necessity and the identity and justifiability of the basic facts of additional grounds for disposition in the same direction."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "Legislative intent and the statutory system, gaps in law, and serious public interest necessity to protect residents' passage are the common central factors."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask whether the necessity of refusal on public interest grounds is recognized even where passage is not completely blocked and other possibilities of access remain."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "As the original text determines the effect of the transitional provision through a totality of circumstances and applies it specifically to the protection of passage on the road concerned, the first reading may focus on Application to the facts, and the independent reading on the totality of circumstances method."}], "batch": "a003", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2017Da249929", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "The first reading specifies it as a particular options transaction, but both readings inquire into the scope of liability for damages owed to an investor who was not induced to trade by unfair practices."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings are read as meaning that liability for damages on account of losses relating to the relevant product may be established even where no trade was induced, and that it extends to counterparties linked in an adverse interest relationship, with the first reading additionally adding the denial of individual liability."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The product structure and the trading method and circumstances, market characteristics, the relationship of the parties, the circumstances before and after the conduct, and unlawfulness substantially overlap."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks whether an adverse interest relationship can be recognized on the basis of an opposing position alone, whereas the independent reading asks how to apportion the amount of damages in which unfair practices and ordinary price movements both played a part."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "In the original, while explaining unfair practices and the requirements for establishing liability for damages, the text calls for an assessment of multiple circumstances, including the product structure and the relationship of the parties, and accordingly each may be read as states requirements and totality of circumstances."}], "batch": "a003", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2015Mo3243", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "The independent reading also encompasses the possibility of retrial against a judgment of dismissal, but whether a warrantless arrest and detention under unconstitutional statutes constitutes grounds for retrial is the shared central question."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings are understood to recognize grounds for retrial for arrest and detention under unconstitutional statutes and not to permit retrial against a judgment of dismissal."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The central elements—the purpose and ideals of the retrial system, the intent of Article 420, subparagraph 7 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the consequence of infringement of fundamental rights—overlap by more than half."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks about extension to warrantless seizure and search, while the independent reading asks about extension to unconstitutional investigations other than violations of the warrant requirement."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a003", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2013Ma1052", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "The first reading concretizes the issue as the redemption conditions of the equity-linked securities held, but both readings ask about wrongful acts affecting satisfaction of the condition and the possibility of the investor's claim for damages."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings are understood to state that, where improper means affect the exercise of rights or the satisfaction of the condition so as to cause loss to the investor, damages may be claimed."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The product structure and the transaction method and circumstances, the timing of termination, the relationship between the parties, and the circumstances before and after the act are the common central elements."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask on what criteria underlying asset transactions having a purpose of risk avoidance or risk management are to be distinguished from wrongful acts."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "As the original text directs multiple transaction circumstances to be considered comprehensively while presenting improper means, the effect on satisfaction of the condition, and the occurrence of loss, the first reading may attend to the requirements and the independent reading to the method of comprehensive determination."}, {"axis": 6, "note": "As the original text expressly sets out the legal principle of compensation for obstruction of the satisfaction of the condition, the first reading may be read as presenting a new criterion, but since the relationship with existing precedents is not directly explained, the independent reading may be read as cannot be confirmed."}], "batch": "a003", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2010Do14487", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask what the requirements of proof and credibility are for finding the fact of receiving a bribe on the basis of the donor's statements alone, without objective physical evidence."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings require strict proof of the entirety of the specific charged facts and the credibility of the statements, and read a finding of guilty based on selective reliance as unlawful."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The central elements overlap: the plausibility of the statements, objective reasonableness, consistency, and the influence of interest and dire circumstances."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks the extent of examination required to determine the cause of changes in statements following amendment of the indictment, while the independent reading asks for additional Evidence to dispel reasonable doubt."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a004", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2008Do9623", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask what the criteria are under which information is generated as material nonpublic information at the stage of considering a reduction of capital by cancellation of shares following the acquisition of treasury shares."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings read that material information is generated when it has been rendered sufficiently concrete in light of materiality and likelihood of occurrence, even without definitive completion, and that the information in this Case falls within that description."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The central elements overlap: the perspective of a reasonable investor, the materiality of the information and its likelihood of occurrence, and the important value in transaction decision-making."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks whether information concerning a particular alternative is generated when several alternatives are being considered in parallel, while the independent reading asks at what specific stage the consideration must have progressed."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "The original text contains both the general requirements for the generation of material information and their application to information concerning a review of the cancellation of treasury shares; accordingly, the first reading may place weight on the specific application, and the independent reading on the general requirements."}], "batch": "a004", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2005Da56865", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "The independent reading broadly covers the requirements for and exercise of the right of avoidance, yet both readings address the scope of restoration following avoidance of a gratuitous provision of collateral."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings recognize the gratuitous nature of a provision of collateral for which no economic consideration is given, and are read as limiting restoration to the amount of claims lost by the creditor through the trustee's valid receipt by subrogation."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "Direct and realistic economic benefit, the requirements for exercising the right of avoidance, the validity of payment by the principal debtor, and the decision factors for assessing the beneficiary's good faith substantially overlap."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks about the scope of restoration where the principal debtor is neither in good faith nor free from negligence, and the independent reading asks under what conditions the indirect benefit of support for affiliated companies is recognized as direct consideration."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 6, "note": "Because the original text derives the limitation of restoration from the principle of equity while also explaining the general legal principles of gratuitous acts and the effect of payment, the first reading may focus on the presentation of the criteria for limitation, and the independent reading may focus on the continuity of the general legal principles."}], "batch": "a004", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "99Do4305", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "The independent reading encompasses the requirements for the establishment of other crimes, but it also addresses the standard for calculating the amount of gain from the limited partnership interest, which is the central question of the first reading."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings take the position that, absent special circumstances, the amount of gain from the limited partnership interest is calculated on the basis of the agreed transfer price."}, "factors": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading focuses on the nature of the rights as a member and their objective value, but the independent reading is dispersed across joint criminal acts, justifiable act, and degree of proof, so that the common elements fall short of half."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "The first reading cites the specific instance of a price affected by deception, while the independent reading poses the question in general terms, but both ask whether there are special circumstances negating the objective value of the agreed transfer price."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "The original text contains, together, cases adopting the share transfer price as the standard for the amount of gain and the general requirements for the establishment of various crimes; accordingly, the first reading may note Application to the facts, and the independent reading may note states requirements."}, {"axis": 7, "note": "The original text requires proof sufficient to exclude reasonable doubt without expressly identifying the party bearing the burden of proof; accordingly, the first reading may be read as implying the prosecutor's burden of proof, while the independent reading may be read as containing no express reference."}], "batch": "a004", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "98Do3051", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Although the independent reading also encompasses the requirements of prearranged trading, both readings ask about the requirements for establishing joint principal offender liability for the offense of receiving consideration for brokerage against a third party who conveyed the brokerage consideration."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings distinguish mere conveyance from conveyance pursuant to a shared intent to manipulate prices, and take the position that the exceptional permissibility of prearranged trading requires strict requirements."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The nature of the conveyance, transactions at the same time and price pursuant to a prior arrangement, the purpose of misleading others' judgment, and the conditions for the exceptional permission substantially overlap."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks about the circumstances warranting recognition of an illegal purpose in prearranged trading for the disposal of a large volume of shares, and the independent reading asks about the establishment of accomplice liability for a person conveying money or valuables without a shared intent to manipulate prices."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a004", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "95Do825", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both ask whether the value of a maximum amount mortgage securing a pre-existing extortion claim may be added to the amount of gain."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both take the position that security serving only to secure a pre-existing claim does not cause the actual amount of gain to exceed the amount of the claim."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The decision factors of the actual amount of gain, conditions for the withdrawal of the auction, and securing of the pre-existing claim align."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first asks whether the distribution amount after enforcement of the security constitutes a separate gain, and the independent asks about the method of calculation where the security confers an independent economic benefit."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "The original text presents, together, the general standard of the actual amount of gain and the case determination that it does not exceed 600 million won; accordingly, the first may focus on the general requirements, and the independent on Application to the facts."}], "batch": "a005", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "93Do695", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both center on the unlawfulness of insider trading using undisclosed information before the enactment of the Ministry of Finance ordinance."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both assess the materiality of the information by materiality and likelihood, and take the position that the use of information that has not been disclosed at all is unlawful even before the enactment of the Ministry of Finance ordinance."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The materiality and likelihood of the information, the delegation limited to the method and timing of disclosure, and the state of total non-disclosure are common."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first asks about the method of recognizing disclosure of information entangled with internal corruption, and the independent asks about the standard for judging the unlawfulness of information partially disclosed before the enactment of the Ministry of Finance ordinance."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 6, "note": "The fact that the original text specifically interprets the meaning of the information and the scope of the delegation may be read as a new standard, but since the relationship with existing precedent is not specified, it may also be read as cannot be confirmed."}], "batch": "a005", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2019Da222140", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both ask whether facts appearing in the reasons of another final and conclusive judgment may be recognized as notorious facts without submission of evidence or assertion."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both take the position that the facts stated in the reasons of the judgment are not notorious facts, and that the lower court's determination, which recognized them without evidence or assertion, is erroneous."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The object, namely the facts stated in the reasons of the judgment, and the central elements of the non-submission of the written judgment and the absence of the parties' assertions align."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first asks about the degree of reasoning required when rejecting the fact findings of the related judgment, and the independent asks about the specific circumstances permitting such rejection."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a005", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2022Do8824", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both ask about the legal standard for determining the admissibility of evidence of a written record of interrogation concerning a tax offense violation prepared by a tax official."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both, pursuant to Article 313, require authenticity of establishment and a state of special credibility, and also consider whether there has been an essential infringement of procedural rights."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The possibility of false intervention, external circumstances ensuring credibility and voluntariness, and the guarantee of the right to remain silent and of assistance of counsel are common."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first asks about the effect of a minor procedural violation on the state of special credibility, and the independent asks about the special circumstances warranting treating a tax offense investigation as criminal proceedings."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 6, "note": "The fact that the original text concretely provides that infringements of procedural rights are to be considered in determining the state of special credibility may be read as a new standard, but since the relationship with precedent is not specified, it may also be read as cannot be confirmed."}], "batch": "a005", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2009Da75291", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Although the scope of the independent reading is broader, both center on the requirements and exceptions for the exercise of the right of avoidance and the burden of proof of bad faith."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both distinguish the burden of proof of the beneficiary and that of the subsequent acquirer, and recognize the possibility of exclusion of avoidance based on proportionality, differing only in the parts emphasized in specific application."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The five elements of the company's property and business status, the motive of the act, the source of funds, and the relationship with creditors and the exercise of influence align."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first asks about exceptions to the principle of the burden of proof of the bad faith of the subsequent acquirer, and the independent asks whether avoidance against Company C will ultimately be recognized after the hearing on remand."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "The original text sets out the requirements and exceptions of the right of avoidance and directs that proportionality be determined in consideration of various circumstances; accordingly, the first may focus on states requirements, and the independent on totality of circumstances."}, {"axis": 7, "note": "The original text places the burden of proving good faith on the beneficiary and the creditor, and, in principle, the burden of proving the bad faith of the subsequent acquirer on the trustee; accordingly, the classification may vary depending on which party and issue is placed at the center."}], "batch": "a005", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2018Du47189", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask about the standing of a registered newspaper business operator, embroiled in a dispute over the use of a name, to contest another business operator's succession to status and registration of change."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings take the position that standing is recognized because the status under registration is distinct from the right to use the name in private law and persists until a court determination."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The direct and specific interest and the purpose of prohibiting duplicate registration overlap, and the central elements of the independence and persistence of the status under registration are also substantially the same."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks about the grounds and procedure for cancellation of registration or registration of change after the conclusion of the civil dispute, and the independent reading asks about the grounds for invalidation or revocation on the merits of the disposition currently being contested."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 6, "note": "The original text sets out the general legal principle of standing while concretely specifying the independence and persistence of the status under newspaper registration; accordingly, the first reading may place weight on the concretized standard, and the independent reading on the application of the general legal principle."}], "batch": "a006", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2014Da235080", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask about the unlawfulness of collecting and providing publicly disclosed personal information for profit without separate consent."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings take the position, using the balancing of interests and the scope of objective consent as the standard, that conduct is not unlawful merely because it is for profit, and that the provision in this case is not unlawful."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "Four of the five elements overlap: whether there is a public existence, the public nature and public interest of the information, the scope of the disclosure audience, and the relevance to the original purpose of disclosure."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask whether the existing unlawfulness determination is maintained where, after disclosure, the data subject expresses an explicit intention to object to the processing."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a006", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "90Do1815", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask about the point in time for calculating the amount of gain from extortion and the possibility of reflecting a subsequent change of circumstances and whether the gain has been realized."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings take the position that the value of the object of unlawful acquisition at the time of completion of the offense is the standard, and that a subsequent change of circumstances, whether the gain has been realized, and conditions and burdens are not reflected."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The value of the object of unlawful acquisition, the time of completion of the offense, the subsequent change of circumstances, and whether the gain has been realized, together with conditions and burdens, substantially all overlap."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask about the method of valuing pecuniary benefit for which objective valuation is difficult at the time of completion of the offense."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a006", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2023Do3626", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask whether, when a third party voluntarily submits duplicated electronic information, the right to participate must also be recognized for the original's custodian with disposition authority."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings read that, absent special circumstances, the right to participate of the original's custodian with disposition authority is not required, and that the court below, which denied admissibility of evidence, was wrong."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The circumstances of the duplication and the state of control and management, the circumstances of submission, and the purpose of excluding participation overlap, and the core of judging special circumstances is the same."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks about the right to participate where the original has also been secured, and the independent reading asks about other circumstances that could justify recognizing manifest unfairness beyond the purpose of excluding participation."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "Because the original text directs that multiple circumstances be considered comprehensively while providing that the right to participate is not required unless there are special circumstances, the first reading may focus on the requirements for the exception, and the independent reading may focus on the method of comprehensive determination."}, {"axis": 6, "note": "Because the original text sets out specific standards for the right to participate regarding duplicated electronic information but does not specify its relation to existing precedent, the first reading may place weight on sets a new standard, and the independent reading may place weight on the limits of confirming the Relation to precedent."}], "batch": "a006", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2022Da253724", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask whether liability to return profits arises from purchases and sales within the period even for an insider who has held the same securities since before six months."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings read that, regardless of whether there was a pre-existing holding, liability to return profits exists to the extent that the quantities of the purchases and sales within six months match."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The core elements of purchases and sales within six months, the range in which the quantities match, and not asking whether there was actual use of inside information or an intent to obtain gains overlap."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks whether an acquisition other than ordinary trading corresponds to a purchase, and the independent reading asks about the order of correspondence between multiple purchases and sales and the method of calculating profits."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a006", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2020Do1669", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "The independent reading includes whether the file constitutes an obscene object, but the central question is the same: the admissibility of evidence of the electronic information submitted by a third party and of the subsequent evidence."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "The gist of the guarantee of the right to participate and of the exclusion of illegally obtained evidence is the same; the first reading concentrates on the denial of admissibility of evidence in the case, and the independent reading on the general standard for recognizing exceptions."}, "factors": {"same": false, "note": "Whether there was transfer or abandonment and whether causation was diluted overlap, but the first reading places at the center control over the medium and a separate warrant, and the independent reading the circumstances of the procedural violation and the investigative authority's recognition."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "Both ask about the specific circumstances under which causation between the antecedent illegality and the subsequent evidence may be recognized as diluted or severed."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 3, "note": "Because the disposition orders reversal of the guilty portion and transfer together, the first reading may be seen to have attended to the structure of partially reversing and then sending the case, and the independent reading to the form of transfer, which is distinct from remand."}, {"axis": 4, "note": "Because the original text sets out the requirements for the admissibility of evidence of the person actually subject to seizure and of the subsequent evidence, the first reading may be read as centered on the application to the exclusion of evidence in the case, and the independent reading on the general organization of the requirements."}], "batch": "a007", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2019Mo2584", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both ask what procedures and conditions are necessary for the seizure of electronic information to be lawful after storage media are taken out."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both read that the investigative authority must prove the exceptional circumstances of the removal, and that absent protective measures such as the right to participate it is unlawful unless there are special circumstances."}, "factors": {"same": false, "note": "The prevention of duplication of information, which is unrelated to the right to participate, overlaps, but the first reading places at the center the presentation of the warrant and the specificity of the notice and list, and the independent reading the necessity of the removal and the exception for substantive infringement."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "Both ask about the special circumstances under which the purpose of guaranteeing the right to participate may be regarded as not having been substantively infringed even where there was no opportunity to participate."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 6, "note": "Because the original text sets out in detail the duties of presenting the warrant and preparing the notice and list, these may be read as a new specification or as a reconfirmation of the existing warrant principle and the legal principle of the right to participate."}], "batch": "a007", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2018Do20504", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "The first reading narrows the focus to a warrant lacking a seal, but both make the central question the exceptional admissibility of illegally obtained evidence and of subsequent evidence."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both recognize an exception to the principle of exclusion of evidence where there is no substantive procedural infringement, but the scope of the explanation regarding application to the case and exceptions to the right to participate differs."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The purpose of the procedural provision, the content and degree of the violation, the circumstances of the violation and the possibility of avoidance, and whether causation was diluted or severed overlap substantially."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks whether the exception extends to other omissions in the entries of the warrant, and the independent reading asks about the conditions for severance of causation between the subsequent evidence and the antecedent illegality."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a007", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2017Do9254", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both ask whether embezzlement is established for the consumption of property received for the concealment of criminal proceeds, and whether the crime victim property is subject to additional collection (confiscation of criminal proceeds)."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both read that, as ownership vests in the recipient under a payment for an illegal cause, embezzlement is not established, and that the value of the crime victim property cannot be subject to additional collection (confiscation of criminal proceeds)."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The nature and purpose of the cause of the payment, whether restitution conforms to the normative purpose, and the delivery for the purpose of concealing criminal proceeds—the core elements—overlap by more than half."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks about the exception to the restriction on additional collection (confiscation of criminal proceeds) arising from infringement of a distinct legal interest, and the independent reading asks about the calculation of the scope of exclusion from additional collection (confiscation of criminal proceeds) where property is mixed."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a007", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2016Mo587", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both ask whether the omission of presentation of the warrant, selection, the right to participate, and delivery of the list in the course of the seizure of electronic information from a server constitutes grounds for canceling the entire procedure."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both read that, separately from the court below's determination concerning the time when speed is required, it upholds the conclusion canceling the seizure and search by comprehensively considering the several procedural violations."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "Non-presentation of the original warrant, seizure of relevant information without selection, failure to guarantee the right to participate, and failure to hand over the list of electronic information all coincide."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks about the stage and method at which relevant information must be selected, and the independent reading asks whether a single individual illegality alone can cancel the entire procedure."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a007", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2015Mo2229", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both ask about the existence of a judgment of a court-martial for which there is no written judgment, and about the possibility of retrial arising from unlawful arrest and detention."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both recognize grounds for retrial by indirect evidence, and recognize the existence of a judgment subject to retrial even where the written judgment is absent or there are unconstitutional or unlawful grounds."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The admissibility of indirect evidence, the absence of any need for strict methods of evidentiary examination, and the distinction between a judgment and a written judgment—the core elements—overlap by more than half."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks about the degree of proof of the official crime constituting grounds for retrial, and the independent reading asks about the final judgment on the merits of the retrial where materials specifying the facts charged are lacking."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a008", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2013Do9605", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both ask about the probative value of conflicting evidence obtained by the same scientific analytical technique, and about whether only evidence of guilt may be adopted."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both read that, without an explanation of the difference in results and verification of the possibility of extremely minute error, results supporting guilt cannot be hastily adopted alone."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The four elements—the identity of the object of analysis, the analyst, and the procedure; the possibility of error; the directionality of the results; and the reason for the conflicting results—coincide."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "The first reading narrowed the focus to the error rate, but both ask about the specific level at which the possibility of error can be recognized as so extremely minute as to be negligible."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "Because the original text presents both a close examination of multiple circumstances and the conditions for adopting only evidence of guilt, the first reading may attend to the conditions and the independent reading to the comprehensive examination."}, {"axis": 6, "note": "Because the original text presents specific criteria for determining probative value but does not specify its relation to existing precedent, the first reading may read it as sets a new standard, and the independent reading may read it as the Relation to precedent being difficult to confirm."}], "batch": "a008", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2010Da72076", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both ask whether standards for the payment of supervision fees in the form of a public notice have external binding force under a delegation provision that directs they be prescribed by a ministerial (subordinate) decree."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both read that the external binding force of a public notice that violated the delegated form is denied, and that its effect is not maintained even by an enforcement order or a supplementary provision."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The core elements of the procedure and method prescribed by the delegation provision, and the restriction on freedom of contract, are common and overlap by more than half."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks about the criteria for determining supervision fees before the enactment of a new ministerial (subordinate) decree, and the independent reading asks about the obligation to pay where the previous public notice has been incorporated into the contract."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a008", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2008Do11437", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both ask about the availability for use and the criteria for determination of secondary Evidence derived from a confession obtained without notice of the right to remain silent."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both determine exceptional admissibility of evidence focusing on the attenuation or severance of causation, and read the in-court statement in this Case as available for use."}, "factors": {"same": false, "note": "The primary reading relies, as its focus, on subsequent circumstances such as correction of the notice, the lapse of time, and an independent source of Evidence, while the independent reading relies on general factors such as the content of the initial procedural violation, the infringement of legally protected interests, and the intent of the investigative agencies."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The primary reading asks about the admissibility of evidence of the evidentiary material secured immediately after the unlawful confession, while the independent reading asks about the lapse of time and the degree of assistance from counsel required for the attenuation or severance of causation."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a008", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2005Geu147", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "The independent reading also encompasses whether differences in repayment terms are permissible, but both take as the central question the distribution of shares at liquidation value and the guarantee of interest."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both read that, absent special circumstances, distribution of shares is denied, and that where liquidation value is no less than principal and interest, interest must also be guaranteed; the independent reading adds the permissibility of differences in repayment terms."}, "factors": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading centers on the deprivation of the right to recover claims, the decline in rank to shareholder, and the inclusion of interest within the security interest; the independent reading centers on consent, the nature of shares akin to cash, and the satisfaction of principal and interest out of liquidation value."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "Both ask for specific criteria by which it may be determined that shares possess liquidity and stability akin to cash, and the independent reading makes this concrete by reference to the valuation date and indicators."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a008", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "99Do2282", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask whether the stock accumulation constitutes market manipulation for the purpose of inducing trading."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "The meaning of the purpose of inducing trading, the criteria for comprehensive determination, and the conclusion that the accumulation in this Case constitutes market manipulation are the same."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The nature of the securities and the total number issued, the motives and types of trading, and the price trends and trading circumstances all overlap."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask for the criteria by which the purpose of inducing trading is recognized or distinguished in accumulation where other investment motives are also present."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a009", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "98Da23614", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask whether the extinguishment of an obligation through compulsory execution also falls within the scope of the right of avoidance."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "The determination that the extinguishment of an obligation based on an act of execution may also be avoided is the same."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The scope of acts extinguishing obligations, and the act of execution and compulsory execution under Article 67, are cited as common elements."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask what standard governs the assessment of a creditor's knowledge when avoiding compulsory execution, and the first reading extends the scope to the time of the act and to the general requirements for avoidance."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a009", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "95Do467", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "The independent reading encompasses the scope of material information as well, but the central question of both readings is whether a speculative newspaper report changes the status of undisclosed material information."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Material information is not limited to statutory reporting items, and the judgment that it is not disclosed or does not lose its importance merely by virtue of similar speculative reports is the same."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The central elements overlap: a significant effect on price, markedly improved performance results, and disclosure in accordance with the company's prescribed method."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks about the effect that accurate press coverage and market reflection have on non-disclosure or importance, while the independent reading asks about the standard of importance for performance information whose margin of change is small or whose realization is uncertain."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a009", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "93Do2516", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings center on whether transactions affecting the reference price of initially listed stocks constitute market manipulation."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "The gist is the same: it denies that the price-fluctuation conduct with respect to initially listed shares where no malformed price exists is applicable, and it also denies the inducement of a misconception as to active trading in the transaction in this Case."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The nature of the securities, the total number issued, the trading conditions, the market conditions, and the absence of a malformed stock price overlap, and the first reading also cites the specific circumstances of the transaction."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks whether manipulation of the listing reference price may be regulated under other unfair trading provisions, while the independent reading asks when subsequent transactions after price formation on the listing date fall under price-fluctuation conduct."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "Since the original text presents, for price-fluctuation conduct, a definition premised on a malformed price, and for conduct inducing a misconception as to active trading requires a totality of circumstances, each may be read differently as states requirements and totality of circumstances, respectively, if attention is paid to each."}], "batch": "a009", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2016Da268848", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "The independent reading extends to the civil servant's liability as well, but both readings ask about the requirements for recognizing the auditor's liability for damages to a third party and whether further examination is necessary."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "They are read as conveying the same import as to the claimant's burden of proof regarding omission of material matters or false entries, the duty of care under the accounting audit standards, and the need for further examination as to whether corrections have been reflected."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "Securing audit evidence, whether the final report and the financial statements have been corrected, the reasonableness and appropriateness of the correction process, and the purpose of statutes and regulations overlap."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask to what extent reflection or confirmation following a request for correction is required before the performance of the duty of care can be recognized, and the first reading specifies this in terms of cases of partial reflection."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "The original text presents the general requirements of liability for damages and the burden of proof while also applying them to the request for correction in this Case and the lack of subsequent examination, so if one focuses on the concrete application it may be read as Application to the facts, and if one focuses on the general legal principle, as states requirements."}], "batch": "a009", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2020Do16420", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Asks whether reflective consideration is needed in applying the new law, which is favorable under both readings."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings share the principle that the new law is applied without reflective consideration and the distinction between other statutory changes and the expiration of the effective period."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "Although the independent reading added transitional provisions, the central elements overlap across the two readings: the type of statutory change, the limits of delegation, changes in the criminal-law perspective, and the effective period."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask for the criterion distinguishing whether a change in the criminal-law perspective is the principal ground in a change of another statute."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a010", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2008Da6755", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask whether a fire caused by the negligence of employees is proved by a substantial possibility alone that the fire was caused by a cigarette ember."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings construe that a substantial possibility alone does not satisfy a high degree of probability and that the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "Holistic assessment of Evidence under rules of experience, proof to a degree that leaves a reasonable person with no doubt, and the substantial possibility of a cigarette ember as the cause are common to both."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "The first reading specifies the exclusion of other causes, but both readings ask for additional circumstantial facts that would satisfy a high degree of probability."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a010", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2017Do18697", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "The independent reading encompasses the burden of proof as well, but the central question is the limit of evaluating an academic expression as an assertion of fact in defamation."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings share the presumptive legitimacy of academic expression, the limits on recognizing an assertion of fact through the making of definitive conclusions about underlying matters, and the prosecutor's burden of proof."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "Of the five elements in the two readings, the three central elements overlap: violation of research ethics, departure from the range tolerated within the academic field, and rights infringement unrelated to context."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The primary reading asks at what boundary the definition of a non-mainstream concept is evaluated as an assertion of fact, while the independent reading asks at what boundary one departs seriously from the range tolerated within the academic field."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 6, "note": "Because the original text explains the existing legal principle on assertion of fact by implication and the prosecutor's burden of proof, while also presenting a special standard of limitation for academic expression, the primary reading may place weight on the specification of the standard, and the independent reading may place weight on the continuity of the existing legal principle."}], "batch": "a010", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2013Do6962", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "The first reading focuses on the market-misleading conduct of operators of similar investment advisory businesses, while the independent reading extends to the number of offenses and corporation liability, yet the central question of whether market-misleading conduct is constituted overlaps."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "The independent reading additionally explains unfair trading and single comprehensive offense, but the direction of judgment regarding awareness of the possibility of the purpose of inducing trading and liability under the dual punishment provision for a one-person company is the same."}, "factors": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading relies mainly on the content of the market-misleading expression and awareness of the possibility, while the independent reading relies mainly on the actor's status, motive, and the basis for prediction, so the substantial overlap falls short of half."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks at what boundary a recommendation of a security becomes market-misleading conduct, while the independent reading asks at what boundary a single and continuing criminal intent in repeated transactions is negated."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a010", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2026Mu533", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask whether a losing party who received aid in litigation may be burdened with the cost of the opposing party's supplementary expert opinion of the same tenor."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings read that the additional expert opinion fee may be struck as an improper cost item and that necessity is determined according to the circumstances at the time of the act."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The core elements — the supplementary expert opinion of the same tenor, the specific circumstances at the time of the act, and the constitutional implications of aid in litigation — overlap by more than half."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The primary reading asks about the scope of application to ordinary civil actions, while the independent reading asks about the scope of striking expert opinion fees where items of duplication and items independently necessary are mixed together."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 6, "note": "Because the original text connects the general legal principle on the striking of improper cost items and the necessity of costs to the additional expert opinion fees of a party who received aid in litigation, the primary reading may lay weight on the specific standards under aid in litigation, and the independent reading on the application of the general legal principle."}], "batch": "a010", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2023Do18971", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "The primary reading focuses on the comprehensive transfer case, but both readings ask about the calculation of the amount of gain and the limits of aggravated punishment under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings read that the amount defrauded is in principle the entirety of the funds delivered, but that if the amount of gain cannot be specifically calculated, the aggravated punishment provisions cannot be applied."}, "factors": {"same": false, "note": "The delivery of money and the principle of proportionality between crime and punishment overlap, but the primary reading takes strict calculation and the impossibility of calculation as core elements, while the independent reading takes the entirety of the funds delivered, the valuation criterion, and the principle of culpability."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The primary reading asks about the scope of establishment of the simple offense of fraud after exclusion of aggravated punishment, and the independent reading asks about the valuation method and materials necessary for calculating the amount of gain."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "Because the original text states requirements — the strict calculation of the amount of gain and the exclusion of application where calculation is impossible — the independent reading may be read as states requirements, while the primary reading, which connects this to the specific transfer case, may be read as application to the facts."}], "batch": "a011", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2021Mo1586", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask about the illegality of a seizure in which all electronic information was retained without screening for relevance and without a detailed list of individual files."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings read that the entire seizure must be cancelled and that the illegality is not cured even by a subsequent warrant."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "Replication without distinction of relevance, the non-particularization of individual file specifications, and the comprehensive list of compressed files overlap as core elements."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings leave open the question of securing legality when entire files are retained for technical reasons; the primary reading focuses on the permissible scope, and the independent reading on additional protective measures."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 6, "note": "Because the original text connects the general warrant requirement and the duty of a detailed list to the cancellation of the entire seizure, the primary reading may lay weight on a new standard for the combined violation, and the independent reading on the continuity of the general legal principle."}], "batch": "a011", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2020Do11223", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask whether the capacity to participate is a requirement of legality in a search and seizure of a residence and whether that requirement was satisfied."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings read that execution attended only by a suspect lacking the capacity to participate is in principle unlawful, and that the question is determined by the outward appearance recognizable at the time of execution."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "Participation issues arising from disability, the accompaniment of a neighbor having the capacity to participate, and the outward appearance recognizable to the investigative authorities at the time of execution substantially overlap."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask to what extent assistance must be provided to a participant with a disability for the capacity-to-participate requirement to be satisfied."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 6, "note": "Because the original text refines the criteria of the capacity to participate and the outward appearance at the time of execution, the primary reading may be read as a new standard, but since it does not make explicit its relationship with precedent, the independent reading may reserve confirmation."}], "batch": "a011", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2019Ma6990", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask whether attorney's fees that the settlor agreed to pay under a trust agreement may be included in the trustee's litigation costs."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings read that agreements to pay after the fact are also included, and that the settlor's payment pursuant to the allocation of costs under the trust agreement is treated in the same manner as a party's payment and is included."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The agreement to pay after the fact, the identity with payment by a party, and the responsibility to conduct the lawsuit and bear the costs under the trust agreement overlap as core elements."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask whether payment by a third party, where there is no internal cost-sharing agreement, may also be treated identically to payment by a party."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "Because the original text contains both the general requirements for recognizing third-party payment and its specific application to a trust agreement, the primary reading may lay weight on states requirements, and the independent reading on application to the facts."}], "batch": "a011", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2018Do13864", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "The primary reading focuses on the introduction of a stock on a broadcast, but both readings ask whether a purchase recommendation concealing an interest constitutes unfair trading and what the criteria for judging a recommendation are."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings read that a purchase recommendation without disclosure of an interest constitutes the use of unfair means and deception, differing only in emphasis between concrete application and the comprehensive judgment criteria."}, "factors": {"same": false, "note": "Post-conduct and stock price trends overlap, but the primary reading takes the concealed interest, the inducement to trade, and the formation of the intention to purchase as core elements, while the independent reading takes the actor's status, the motive for the statement, and the reasonable basis."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The primary reading asks about the boundary at which mentioning a stock on an internet broadcast or by text message becomes a purchase recommendation, and the independent reading asks about the sufficiency of the content and method of disclosure of the interest."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "Because the original text presents both the requirements for the illegality of a recommendation made without disclosure of an interest and the comprehensive decision factors for determining whether it constitutes a purchase recommendation, the primary reading may be read as states requirements, and the independent reading as totality of circumstances."}], "batch": "a011", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2017Do13458", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "The independent reading includes other issues as well, but both readings ask whether seized evidence may be used in connection with crimes related to the suspected facts stated in the warrant."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings read that where objective relevance and personal relevance exist, the seized evidence may be used, and that the two penalty provisions stand in a relation of imaginary concurrence."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "Differences in constituent elements, objective relevance to the suspected facts stated in the warrant, and relevance to electioneering overlap, and the independent reading adds prosecutorial discretion and personal relevance."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The primary reading asks about the boundary between objective relevance and the mere commission of similar offenses, and the independent reading asks about the limits of prosecutorial discretion to prosecute only some of the crimes."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a012", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2016Du47659", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask about the unlawfulness of a tax assessment based on materials collected through a tax investigation conducted for an improper purpose."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings read that a tax investigation conducted for an improper purpose involves a grave illegality and that a tax assessment based on such materials is also unlawful."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "Objective necessity, minimality, the prohibition of abuse of authority, and the improper purpose overlap as core elements."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask about the criterion that determines the unlawfulness of a tax assessment where a legitimate investigative purpose and an improper purpose coexist."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 6, "note": "The primary reading may be read as a new standard, with attention to the point that the original text connects the normative effect of the prohibition on abuse of investigative authority to the unlawfulness of the tax assessment, while the independent reading may be regarded as reserving confirmation because the relationship with existing precedent is not made explicit."}], "batch": "a012", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2015Do3260", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask about the scope within which the appellate court must respect the sentencing of the first instance court, and about the unlawfulness of a reversal based solely on a difference in view."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings read the majority opinion that, while recognizing the principle of respect for the sentencing of the first instance court and the grounds for reversal, a reversal based on a difference in view alone cannot be held unlawful."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "Whether the sentencing conditions have changed, new materials before the appellate court, and a statement of the sentencing materials and the reasoning without contradiction overlap."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The primary reading asks about securing the procedural effectiveness of the principle of respect for the sentencing of the first instance court, and the independent reading asks about the degree of importance at which new sentencing materials justify a reversal."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 6, "note": "If attention is paid to the formulation in the original text of the standards of respect for the sentencing of the first instance court and of reversal, it may be read as a new standard; if attention is paid to the explanation grounded in the appellate court's own sentencing discretion, it may be read as the maintenance of the existing legal principle."}], "batch": "a012", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2013Do7718", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask whether a customs inspection that opens mail without a warrant, collects samples, and analyzes their components is lawful."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings read it to the effect that a customs inspection, being an administrative investigation and not a compulsory measure by an investigative agency, is not unlawful even if conducted without a warrant absent special circumstances."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The procedure of a customs inspection of mail and the central elements of an appropriate customs-clearance purpose and the nature of an administrative investigation overlap."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask for the special circumstances that render a warrantless customs inspection unlawful, and the first reading cites a request from an investigative agency or an investigative purpose as concrete examples."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 6, "note": "The fact that the original text derived the lawfulness of a warrantless inspection from the administrative-investigative character of customs inspections may be read by the first reading as \"sets a new standard\", whereas the independent reading may be viewed as reserving confirmation because its relationship to precedent is not specified."}], "batch": "a012", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2010Da58889", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask whether, on the basis of a final and conclusive judgment rendered against a clan community, acquisition of ownership may also be asserted against clan members as res judicata."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings read it to the effect that res judicata does not arise with respect to the determination of ownership in the reasons for the judgment and does not extend to clan members, who are separate entities."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The claim constituting the subject matter of suit, the determination of ownership in the reasons for the judgment, the separate entity status of the clan community and its members, and their mere relationship as co-litigation (joinder of parties) all overlap."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks about the validity of a resolution disposing of clan community property under the rules and different practices, while the independent reading asks about the validity in substantive law of A's acquisition of ownership itself."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a012", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2008Da36930", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask whether an auditor who neglected address verification must pay damages up to the increased embezzlement losses even after the audit has ended."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings deny adequate causation (proximate cause) with the losses in this case that increased after the audit ended, on the basis of the purpose of the duty of address verification."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The central elements of the probability of the result occurring and the purpose of the duty overlap, and the independent reading adds the manner of the act and the nature and extent of the harm."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks about causation for losses occurring during the audit period, while the independent reading asks about special circumstances that would warrant recognizing causation for losses arising after the audit ended."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a013", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2003Do4320", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Whether the transmission of internal information to the employee in charge constitutes disclosure to the counterparty corporation (juristic person) is a common question, and the independent reading also includes the requirements for the constitution of other crimes."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings do not regard the mere transmission of information to an employee who received a solicitation payment without report or instruction and traded in breach of trust as a complete disclosure to the corporation (juristic person)."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The materiality of the information and the probability of occurrence, whether there was a report or instruction to the person with decision-making authority, and fictitious trades and market participation rate overlap, so the central elements are the same."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks about the time of disclosure in a case where a report was made without intent to commit breach of trust, while the independent reading asks whether disclosure occurs where the employee who received the solicitation payment is the ultimate decision-maker."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "Because the original text contains both the Application to the facts for a case of transmitting information to the employee in charge and the general requirements for the constitution of various crimes, the first reading may place weight on \"Application to the facts\" and the independent reading on \"states requirements\"."}], "batch": "a013", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "99Geu90", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask whether provisional execution may be permitted when a claim for payment of money joined with an action for avoidance is sustained."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings permit provisional execution of the portion of payment of money on the basis of the purpose of the provisional execution system and the various methods of exercising the right of avoidance."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "Prompt enforcement of rights through provisional execution and the exercise of the right of avoidance, which is possible not only by an action but also by claim or defense, are the common central elements."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks about application under current law and the handling of provisional execution after its reversal on appeal, while the independent reading asks whether provisional execution is also possible for return of property other than money."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 6, "note": "The fact that the original text derives the criteria for permitting provisional execution from the purpose of the system may be read as \"sets a new standard\", but because the relationship with existing precedent is not specified in the original text provided, it may also be read as \"cannot be confirmed\"."}], "batch": "a013", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "97Do2609", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "The question whether the political funds received by a member of the National Assembly constitute bribery is common, and the independent reading broadly includes the questions of the remaining Holdings."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings read it to the effect that where there is a relationship of consideration with official duties as a whole, bribery is recognized regardless of the specification of individual official acts or the designation as political funds."}, "factors": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading focuses on the relation to official duties, the nature of consideration, and acts of solicitation, while the independent reading additionally includes the number of offenses, the right of defense, intent to defraud, and the status relationship, so that the substantive overlap falls short of half."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask how to divide the scope of bribery within funds in which support for pure political activities and consideration for official duties are mixed."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a013", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "95Da30253", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask whether, where the closing of the reorganization procedure has become final and conclusive during the pendency of an action for avoidance, the related rights and lawsuits may be succeeded to by another person."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings read it to the effect that if the reorganization procedure terminates before recovery of property, the claim for return and the claim for reimbursement of value are extinguished and no one may succeed to them."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The nature of rights premised on the progress of the reorganization procedure and the position of the administrator, and the termination of the procedure before recovery of property, are the central elements that overlap."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask about the effect of the termination of the procedure on property already recovered before the end of the reorganization procedure."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a013", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "93Do1341", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "The central question of calculating the amount of gains obtained by fraud under sequential collusion is the same, and the independent reading also includes the constitution of joint principal offender liability of a non-issuer."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "The determination is the same: the amounts obtained by fraud by the final accomplice are aggregated, and a non-issuer may also become a joint principal offender pursuant to the collusion."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The amount obtained by fraud by the final accomplice and the collusion of the non-issuer are the central elements that overlap."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "The intent is the same in asking about the scope of the amount of gains attributed to an accomplice who participated in only some of the stages."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a014", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2006Da16758", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "They share the question of the scope of damages after the formation of the normal stock price, and the independent reading extends the treatment to the claim period and limitation of liability."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "The gist is the same: fluctuation losses after the formation of the normal stock price are excluded in principle, and the corporation (juristic person) and others prove the absence of causation."}, "factors": {"same": false, "note": "The point of realistic recognition and the formation of the normal stock price overlap, but the first reading cites statistical significance, equitable burden-sharing, and delayed sale, while the independent reading cites other causes of loss, the victim's contributory negligence, and changes in the circumstances of the company and the market, so more than half is not substantially the same."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "The intent is the same in asking about the materials and method for determining the date of formation of the normal stock price, and the first reading specifies it to the case where information becomes known gradually."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 6, "note": "If attention is paid to the part where the original text presents specific criteria for the normal stock price and the proof of causation, it may be read as \"sets a new standard\"; if attention is paid to the part explaining general legal principles and the principles of damages, it may be read as following existing precedent."}], "batch": "a014", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2017Du66602", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "It asks whether the prior notice and hearing of opinions on a subsequent order to take measures may be omitted on the ground of the conviction for noncompliance with a prior order to take measures."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "The gist is the same: the prior conviction alone does not prove new grounds for the disposition, and since the disposition is discretionary, the procedure cannot be omitted; the first reading also adds the question of invalidity and \"appeal dismissed\"."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "Proof of only some facts, the possibility of change of circumstances with the passage of time, the discretionary nature of the disposition, and the influence of the hearing of opinions are substantially the same."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "They commonly ask about the boundary at which the defect of omitting prior notice and hearing of opinions becomes a ground for invalidity."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 6, "note": "If emphasis is placed on the specific interpretation concerning the exception to the hearing of opinions in the original text, it may be read as \"sets a new standard\"; if emphasis is placed on the application of general principles concerning prior notice and hearing of opinions, it may be read as following existing precedent."}], "batch": "a014", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2005Mo472", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "The central question of the method for determining the clarity of retrial evidence is the same, and the independent reading also includes the determination of novelty."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "The clarity standard is the same, evaluating together the denial of novelty based on negligence in the failure to submit evidence and the related existing evidence, and the independent reading also adds the result of application to the case."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "Negligence in the failure to submit evidence, the relevance and inconsistency between the new evidence and the existing evidence, and a high degree of probability such that the final and conclusive judgment cannot be maintained overlap."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks about the criteria for determining negligence in the failure to submit evidence and the party bearing the burden of proof, while the independent reading asks about the criteria for determining the relevance and inconsistency between the new evidence and the existing evidence."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a014", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2015Ma4027", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "The central question is the same: the scope of examination in the class action certification procedure and the specification of the total number of class members, and the independent reading also includes the commonality and efficiency requirements."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "The gist is the same: examination of the underlying liability is excluded in principle, while examination necessary for the determination of commonality is permitted, and the method of specifying the total number of members selected by the representative party is recognized in principle."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The clarity of the specification of the total number, the unreasonableness of the selected method, the commonality of material facts, and cost-effectiveness compared with other remedies substantially overlap."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks whether the same cut-off date and first-in, first-out method can also be applied to disclosure liability in the distribution market, and the independent reading asks for the criteria by which to judge the unreasonableness of the method of specifying the total number."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 6, "note": "Because the original text presents specific criteria concerning the certification procedure and the specification of the total number, it may be read as a new standard, but because it does not clarify its relationship to precedent, it may also be read as cannot be confirmed."}], "batch": "a014", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2007Do3061", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings take as their central question whether seized items collected in an unlawful manner may be recognized as admissibility of evidence."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings contain the same determination: the exclusion in principle of illegally obtained evidence and derivative evidence, and their exceptional admission."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "All elements coincide, including the content and circumstances of the procedural violation, infringement of rights, causation, and the awareness and intent of the investigative authority."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks who bears the burden of proof and to what degree with respect to the circumstances for an exception, and the independent reading asks whether individual evidence should be exceptionally admitted in the proceedings on remand."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a015", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2024Do19106", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask whether, separately from the intent to participate of the person subject to seizure, an opportunity to participate must be guaranteed to counsel."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings recognize counsel's independent right to participate and read that, notwithstanding a procedural violation, admissibility of evidence may exceptionally be recognized by comprehensively considering the circumstances."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The substance of the infringement of the right to participate, the circumstances of the violation and the possibility of avoidance, and the awareness and intent of the investigative authority overlap, so that more than half of the central elements coincide."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks under what conditions an omission of notice does not infringe the substance of due process, and the independent reading asks about exceptions to the duty to guarantee a separate opportunity to participate itself."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a015", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2023Do11395", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Although there is a difference in scope between a specific case involving possession and a general standard, both readings ask about the relevance of electronic information on other digital sex crimes."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings read that the relevance of information on the same or similar crimes that are temporally connected may be recognized, and that it is determined by the circumstances at the time of execution of a warrant."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The content and nature of the alleged facts, the process of search and seizure, the tendency of the offenses, and the circumstances recognizable at the time of execution of a warrant are common."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask the limits of recognizing the relevance of crime information temporally separated, though the first reading focuses on the overlap of the possession period."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "Because the original text sets out temporal connection and type of offense while directing that specific relevance be examined, the first reading may place weight on the requirements, and the independent reading on the comprehensive weighing of circumstances."}, {"axis": 6, "note": "Because the original text applies the legal principles concerning illegal filming to other digital sex crimes, the first reading may read it as a new standard expanding the scope of application, and the independent reading as the application of existing legal principles."}], "batch": "a015", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2021Do8284", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask the scope within which relevance between the suspected facts stated in the warrant and the seized items is recognized in a search and seizure conducted by a military prosecutor."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings read that, premised on a limitation of relevance, objective relevance may be recognized not only in direct evidence but also in indirect evidence and circumstantial evidence."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The motive and circumstances of the offense, the means and method, the time and place, the course of the investigation, and the accomplice relationship substantially coincide."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks the limits of continued retention when circumstances negating relevance emerge after the seizure, and the independent reading asks the additional circumstances necessary for recognition of relevance."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a015", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2020Da300893", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask the propriety and utility of a subrogation declaratory action for confirmation of ownership with respect to unregistered land whose name holder cannot be identified."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings recognize the impropriety arising from the nonexistence or death of the subrogated person and the limits of proving ownership by a judgment against an unidentified name holder, and read the interest in confirmation as a matter to be investigated ex officio."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The actual existence and survival of the subrogated person, the absence or unknown identity of the registered name holder, and the impossibility of identification arising from insufficient personal particulars are common."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks the procedure by which a long-term manager reaches preservation-of-ownership registration, and the independent reading asks the extent of the materials needed to identify the ownership name holder."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a015", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2019Do4938", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Although the emphasis differs between the scope of submission and the non-delivery of a list, the central question is the same: the admissibility of evidence of footage of other offenses found on a voluntarily submitted mobile phone."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "The gist is the same: the admissibility of evidence of the video is recognized on the basis of its relevance to the crime and whether procedural rights were substantially infringed."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "Although there is a difference in description between a general standard and specific circumstances, the relevance of the time and place, participation in the search, and whether procedural rights were substantially infringed overlap."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks the criterion for judging the substance of participation in the search, and the independent reading asks the limits of crime relevance according to the time and place of filming."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a016", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2018Da271657", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "They both ask the allocation of appellate costs where both parties' appeals are dismissed and there is a marked difference in the scope of the challenge."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "The gist is the same: costs arising from each challenge are borne by the relevant party, or apportioned in proportion to the scope of the challenge, so as to prevent an unjust result."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The principle that the losing party bears the costs, the form and course of the lawsuit, and the marked difference in the scope of the challenge, as the central elements, overlap."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "They ask the same question: to what extent a marked difference in the scope of the challenge must exist such that departure from each party bearing its own costs is warranted."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "Because the original text presents the marked difference in the scope of the challenge and the unjust result as conditions while also requiring the consideration of all circumstances, the first reading may focus on states requirements, and the independent reading on totality of circumstances."}], "batch": "a016", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2017Da287648", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "The central question is the same: whether the act of assigning to an attorney a claim in the amount of a success fee while in a state of insolvency may be avoided."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "The gist is the same: harmfulness is judged on the basis of the time of the act of assignment, and avoidance is denied on the grounds of the simultaneous exchange with the provision of services and a reasonable balance."}, "factors": {"same": false, "note": "The simultaneous exchange, the source of the repayment funds, and the relationship between the parties overlap, but the first reading cites the condition precedent, the opposability requirement (assertability against third parties), and the burden of proof of good faith, while the independent reading cites the reasonable balance of the counter-performance and the state of the property and business, so that the composition of the elements and their center differ."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks the limits of a reasonable balance according to the fee ratio, and the independent reading asks the special circumstances that permit avoidance even where balance is recognized."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a016", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2016Da257572", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Although the independent reading broadly extends to reasonableness and burden of proof as well, the central question is the same: the subjective requirement of intent for the avoidance of a preferential act and the determination of the good faith of the beneficiary."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "The gist is the same: active intent to harm is unnecessary, reasonableness and good faith are proven by the beneficiary, and awareness of excess liabilities cannot serve as the principal ground for good faith."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The state of the company's property and business, the source of the repayment funds, the relationship with the creditor, and whether there was collusion or coercion of repayment are the common central elements."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks the conditions for recognizing the reasonableness of repayment made pursuant to a grace period and a repayment plan, and the independent reading asks the specific circumstances for recognizing the good faith of the beneficiary and the degree of proof."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a016", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2015Da240447", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "They both ask the conditions under which collateral provided simultaneously with new borrowing while in a state of insolvency may be avoided."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "The gist is the same: where simultaneous exchange, a reasonable balance of prices, and the absence of a risk of disposition that harms creditors are present, it cannot be avoided."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "All three elements are the same: the simultaneous exchange with the new borrowing, the balance between the loan amount and the value of the collateral, and the risk of harmful disposition of the loan proceeds."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks the effect of the use of the loan proceeds to repay existing debts on the risk of harmful disposition, and the independent reading asks the range of a reasonable balance between the loan amount and the value of the collateral."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 6, "note": "Because the original text presents the conditions for excluding avoidance as a general standard, the first reading may read it as a new standard, but because it does not clarify the relationship with existing precedent, the independent reading may read it as cannot be confirmed."}], "batch": "a016", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2011Du30687", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask the application of the prior notice and opinion-submission procedure and the scope of omission in ex officio dismissal of a civil servant in a special service position."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings read that the fact alone that it is a personnel disposition does not exclude application of the procedure, and that it may be omitted only within limited exceptions."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The central elements overlap: the difficulty or unnecessariness of conducting the procedure, and the existence of a procedure equivalent thereto."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks the circumstances under which the hearing of opinions becomes clearly unnecessary, and the independent reading asks the safeguards that a procedure equivalent to administrative procedure must provide."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a017", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2009Do1374", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "The independent reading covers the scope of multiple prohibited practices as well, but both readings include the determination of the gains obtained from violation acts as a core question."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "The scope of explanation in the independent reading is broader, but the answer is the same: the prosecutor must prove gains bearing causation to the risk arising from the violation acts."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The status of the actor and the condition of the enterprise, the circumstances of the violation acts, and the market situation overlap, and the central element for identifying causally related gains is the same."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks about exceptions to the ordinary calculation method and the method of deducting market factors, while the independent reading asks about the specific amount of gain in this case reflecting other stock price fluctuation factors."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "Since the original text requires causation with respect to the gain while also expressly providing for a comprehensive evaluation of various circumstances, the first reading may focus on the causation requirement and the independent reading on the method of comprehensive evaluation."}], "batch": "a017", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2006Do4994", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask under what conditions the appellate court may overturn the first instance determination that denied the credibility of witness testimony."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings permit reversal only in the exceptional case of clear error or manifest injustice, and for statements supporting the facts alleged in the indictment they require particularly grave circumstances."}, "factors": {"same": false, "note": "The demeanor and attitude of the witness overlap, but the first reading takes the principle of direct hearing and the exceptional requirements for reversal as its central elements, while the independent reading centers on the materials of evidence examination conducted at first instance and on appeal."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask about the effect that the appellate court's re-examination of the witness has on the deference to the first instance credibility determination and on the possibility of reversal."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a017", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2001Du8827", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "The independent reading also covers whether blanket grounds for refusal may be permitted, but the central question of both readings is the extent to which other grounds for non-disclosure may be added during the lawsuit."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings were read as requiring the assertion and proof of specific grounds for non-disclosure and as permitting the addition of grounds only within the scope in which the basic facts are identical."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The concrete examination of the content of the information, the conflicting legal interests, and the identity of the underlying facts substantially overlap, and the independent reading also invokes the right of defense and the protection of legitimate expectations."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks about the substantive standard for whether the information in question falls within the original grounds for non-disclosure, and the independent reading asks about the degree of specificity in the presentation of information for proving grounds for non-disclosure."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 7, "note": "Since the original text requires the public institution that refuses disclosure to make the assertion and provide the proof, this may be read as its status as the claimant's opposing party, or as the party asserting grounds for non-disclosure."}], "batch": "a017", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "98Do3282", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "The independent reading also covers the effect of delegation and public notice and even whether the offense of fraud is established, but both readings include the calculation of the amount of gain in discounting bills of exchange and checks as a central question."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings take the cash amount actually received as the standard where there is no special agreement, do not add the amount of gain from deferral of performance of obligations, and also reject punishment of unlicensed business in the absence of public notice or announcement."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "Foreseeability of inability to pay, the special agreement on a consumption loan, the special agreement extinguishing existing obligations, and public notice or announcement are common elements."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks about the determination of the standard for aggravated punishment where the amount actually received cannot be ascertained, and the independent reading asks about the calculation of the amount of gain where there is a special agreement including advance interest and expenses in the principal."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a017", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "96Do1167", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask whether voluntary surrender after discovery of the offense or after being listed as a wanted person but before arrest falls within the scope of mandatory exemption from punishment."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings construe that, because limiting voluntary surrender to the period before discovery of the offense would violate the principle prohibiting analogy, voluntary surrender before arrest is also included."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The legislative purpose of inducing reports so as to punish providers, the possible meaning of the text, and the prohibition of even limited analogy for grounds for exemption from punishment are common central elements overlapping by more than half."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks about the criterion for judging the voluntariness of voluntary appearance after a long period of flight, and the independent reading asks about the possibility of exemption from punishment where only part of the offense is stated."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a018", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "94Mo51", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask whether a waiver of rights eliminates the duty to return seized items, and the independent reading further includes the disposition of seized items where it is unclear whether customs duties were evaded."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings construe that the duty to return and the claim for return are not extinguished by a waiver of rights, and that forfeiture to the national treasury and continued seizure of seized items whose circumstances of customs evasion is unknown are not permitted."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "Restoration to the state prior to seizure, the distinction between rights under substantive law and procedural status, the mandatory nature of the duty to return, and the unknown circumstances of customs evasion are common central elements overlapping by more than half."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks about the procedure that would block the return of penalty articles where there is no ground for confiscation absent the filing of a public prosecution, and the independent reading asks about the criteria for judging a waiver of ownership and the State's acquisition of ownership in a civil action following return."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a018", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2013Do11650", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both ask whether prosecutorial statements that were retracted in court may be credited in order to find guilt."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both defer to the lower court's determination that recognized the credibility of the prosecutorial statements, and the first reading adds a dissenting opinion as well."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The rationality of the statement, objective adequacy, consistency, interests, and objective corroborating materials are central elements that overlap."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "Both ask about the effect that the characteristics of the investigative process have on the credibility of the prosecutorial statements, but the independent reading focuses on the threshold for denying credibility."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a019", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2018Do3619", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both ask whether Bitcoin acquired through serious crimes may be confiscated."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both construe that Bitcoin is intangible property possessing property value, that its object is specified, and that it may be confiscated."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "Acquisition through serious crimes, economic value and tradability, actual payment of consideration, and specification of the object all overlap."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks about confiscation under the Criminal Act of virtual currency acquired through crimes other than serious crimes, and the independent reading asks about specification of the object where it has been commingled with lawful Bitcoin."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "Since the original text presents together the conditions under which intangible property may be confiscated and the specific application to Bitcoin, the first reading may place weight on the conditions and the independent reading on the application."}, {"axis": 6, "note": "Since the original text derives the possibility of confiscating intangible property through legal interpretation, the first reading may view it as a new standard, but because the Relation to precedent is not expressly stated, the independent reading may view it as \"cannot be confirmed\"."}], "batch": "a019", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2007Do7257", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "The central question concerning the admissibility of evidence of digitally printed documents is the same, and the independent reading further includes the consular certificate of facts and whether the organization qualifies as an enemy-benefiting organization."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both require the identity of the digitally printed documents and the requirements under the hearsay rule, and the independent reading adds the conclusions of other Holdings as well."}, "factors": {"same": false, "note": "Identity and technical reliability overlap, but the first reading takes immutability, the ability of the operator, and the hearsay rule, while the independent reading adds the purpose of the report and the organized nature of the organization, so they do not overlap by more than half."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks about the method of proving authenticity of execution without the drafter's acknowledgment, and the independent reading asks about the method of supplementing the immutability of the original where custody records are missing."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 7, "note": "Since the original text requires proof requirements for the use of evidence, the first reading may read the prosecutor's burden of proof, but since the party bearing the responsibility is not expressly identified, the independent reading may view it as \"not addressed\"."}], "batch": "a019", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2016Da275679", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both ask when the minority shareholder's authority to convene a general meeting, for which no convening period is set, lapses."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both construe that the authority lapses when a considerable period has elapsed absent special circumstances, and the first reading adds a determination concerning the company's representative."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The purpose of the convening, the circumstances of the permission, the period elapsed, the change of circumstances, and the reason for the belated convening all overlap."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "Both ask about the content of the special circumstances under which the convening authority does not lapse even after a considerable period has elapsed."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "Since the original text presents together the conditions for the lapse of the authority and the various factors to be considered in determining a considerable period, the first reading may focus on the requirements and the independent reading on the comprehensive judgment."}, {"axis": 6, "note": "The portion of the original text that argues the temporal limit of the convening authority may be read as a new standard, and the description declaring general legal principles may be read as a reconfirmation of the existing legal principle, but the Relation to precedent is not expressly stated."}], "batch": "a019", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2008Do8137", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both ask under what conditions the receipt of money may be recognized on the basis of the remaining statements after a substantial portion of the statements regarding the provision of money has been rejected."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both read that recognition on the basis of the remaining statements alone is not permitted in principle, and that special circumstances, such as sufficient grounds for reliability or corroborating evidence, are required."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The rationality of the statements, objective reasonableness, consistency, and the influence of interest and destitute circumstances overlap; the primary reading also includes the character of the person and corroborating evidence."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The primary reading asks the proportion of the rejected statements sufficient to shake overall credibility, and the independent reading asks what specific corroborating evidence would dispel doubt concerning the remaining statements."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 6, "note": "The original text explains the special conditions for recognizing the remainder after some statements have been rejected, which may be read as a new standard and may also be read as a specification of the general law of credibility, although it does not state the relation to precedent."}, {"axis": 7, "note": "Because the original text requires grounds that dispel reasonable doubt for a guilty finding, the primary reading may read the prosecutor's burden of proof, but because it does not specify who bears that burden, the independent reading may be regarded as not addressed."}], "batch": "a019", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2025Do4422", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask whether evidence unlawfully seized and the defendant's statements in court based thereon may be used as evidence of guilt."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both read that the unlawfulness of the seizure is not cured by a subsequent warrant or consent to evidence, and that the prosecutor must prove special circumstances for the exceptional use of derivative evidence."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The gravity of the suspicion of the crime, the evidentiary value of the seized items, the degree of infringement of the right to assistance of counsel, and the independence of the in-court statements are common, with the central elements and more than half of the factors overlapping."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The primary reading asks the conditions and period for the retention of electronic information before the issuance of a separate warrant, and the independent reading asks the degree of independence required where multiple pieces of evidence have influenced the in-court statements."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "Because the original text sets out the requirements for exceptions to the seizure and the use of evidence while also requiring comprehensive consideration of the relevant circumstances, the primary reading may place weight on the requirements, and the independent reading on the method of determination."}], "batch": "a020", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2023Do13514", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both ask whether fraud concerning money paid by married victims, each from accounts in their own names, may be regarded as a single comprehensive offense."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both read that the identity of the protected legal interest and a single comprehensive offense were recognized by considering circumstances other than the attribution of civil rights."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The commonality and course of the deception, the commonality of the decision to hand over property, and the purpose and method of the handover and the subsequent circumstances are common, with the central elements and more than half of the factors overlapping."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The primary reading asks whether the scope of application can be extended to joint property management relationships other than married couples, and the independent reading asks the case in which each person's separate (non-marital) property, rather than joint property, was handed over."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "Because the original text explains that multiple circumstances are to be considered together and applies this to the specific case of married victims, the primary reading may focus on the comprehensive method of determination, and the independent reading on Application to the facts."}], "batch": "a020", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2021Ma6702", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask whether the rehabilitation claimant who was the former plaintiff may intervene as a supplementary participant in a lawsuit succeeded to by the manager and changed to an action for avoidance."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both read that, because the outcome of the lawsuit affects the legal status of the rehabilitation claimant, intervention as a supplementary participant is permitted absent special circumstances."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "Interest in the outcome of the lawsuit, the relationship between the judgment and legal status, and the effect of an increase or decrease of the debtor's property are common central elements."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask the specific content of the special circumstances that would preclude supplementary participation by the rehabilitation claimant."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a020", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2020Do10729", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask whether the participation of counsel must be separately guaranteed notwithstanding the waiver of participation by the person subject to seizure, and whether evidence collected in violation thereof may be used."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both read that the attorney's independent right to participate is recognized, and that whether evidence obtained in violation of procedure may be exceptionally used is determined by comprehensive consideration of the relevant circumstances."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The purpose of the procedural provision, the content and degree of the violation, the circumstances of the violation and the possibility of avoidance, and the awareness and intent of the investigative agency are common, with the central elements and more than half of the factors overlapping."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The primary reading asks whether an exception to the exclusion of evidence may be recognized even after the legal principle of the duty to notify has been established, and the independent reading asks an exception to the duty itself to guarantee a separate opportunity to participate."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a020", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2019Ma6102", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask exclusive jurisdiction where the bankruptcy trustee files an action for objection to distribution upon restitution following the exercise of the right of avoidance."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both read that the jurisdiction provisions for the court conducting the bankruptcy proceedings do not apply, and that exclusive jurisdiction is recognized in the District Court to which the enforcement court conducting the distribution belongs."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The text and purpose of the jurisdiction provisions, the relationship between the two lawsuits, fairness and convenience, predictability, and the appropriateness and effectiveness of adjudication all overlap."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The primary reading asks whether the same legal principle applies to an action for objection to distribution by the manager in rehabilitation proceedings, and the independent reading asks jurisdiction where the bankruptcy trustee claims restitution by other means."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "Because the original text sets out jurisdiction rules according to the form of the particular lawsuit while considering multiple circumstances as their basis, the primary reading may focus on the requirements for application, and the independent reading on the comprehensive method of reasoning."}, {"axis": 6, "note": "The point that the original text expressly organized the relationship of application between the two exclusive jurisdiction provisions may be read as a new standard, but the failure to clarify the relation to existing precedent may be read as cannot be confirmed."}], "batch": "a020", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2018Da301336", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask what measures the court should take when the assertion and proof of the amount of damages are inadequate."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both read that if the amount cannot be ascertained even after clarification and examination, damages may be recognized by synthesizing indirect facts."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The relationship between the parties, the course in which the damages arose, the nature of the damages, and the circumstances following their occurrence are common central elements."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The primary reading asks the limits of the court's determining the amount of damages in lieu of the party who fails to prove, and the independent reading asks the degree of hearing required before calculation based on indirect facts."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 7, "note": "If attention is paid to the portion urging the party to adduce proof, the burden of proof of the asserting party may be read; if attention is paid to the fact that the allocation of the burden of proof is not directly declared, it may be read as not addressed."}], "batch": "a021", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2017Do12649", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask the amount defrauded and causation in fundraising using falsified financial statements, and the independent reading also includes issues under the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both treat the entire amount handed over as the amount defrauded and consider, in the determination of causation, the decline in reliability caused by the discovery of the falsification, and the independent reading adds the determination under the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "Whether there is a surplus or a deficit, the effect on reliability, the meaning of wrongful means, and the calculation element of deducting total costs from total revenue all overlap."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The primary reading asks the severance of causation where a financial institution was partially aware of the falsification, and the independent reading asks the scope of costs to be deducted in calculating profits from the violation."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a021", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2016Da277682", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask the valuation standard for the subject property of a rehabilitation security right, and the independent reading also includes the value of property in rehabilitation proceedings and the method of valuation."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both read that valuation is premised on the continuation of the business, and that if its objective value can be expressed, other valuation methods are also permitted."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The continuation of the business, valuation methods based on profitability, and objective value taking continuity into account are central elements that overlap."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The primary reading asks how a resale restriction agreement is reflected in the valuation, and the independent reading asks which result prevails where the results of multiple valuation methods differ."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a021", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2015Do12400", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings inquire into the scope and method of lawful warrant presentation, and the independent reading additionally covers the participation guarantee and the admissibility of illegally obtained evidence."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "The gist is the same, namely that the warrant must be presented so that its mandatory particulars can be sufficiently ascertained; the first reading adds the conclusion of the case, while the independent reading adds the participation guarantee and the legal principle on admissibility of evidence."}, "factors": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading relies mainly on warrant verification, individual presentation, and the participation guarantee, while the independent reading relies mainly on the decision factors for assessing admissibility of evidence, such as the degree and circumstances of the procedural violation and the awareness of the investigative agencies."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks whether the contents of the warrant must be affirmatively presented even absent a request to inspect them, and the independent reading asks under what conditions causation is diluted or severed by subsequent evidence collection."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 3, "note": "Where the original disposition contains both an appeal dismissed and a partial reversal followed by dismissal of the appeal, focusing on the mixed nature of the disposition as a whole permits a reading as Other, while focusing on the portion reversed in part and decided directly permits a reading as reversal and self-adjudication."}, {"axis": 4, "note": "Focusing on the obligation to present the warrant and guarantee participation in the original permits a reading as states requirements, while focusing on the portion assessing as a whole the relevant circumstances of illegally obtained evidence and secondary evidence permits a reading as totality of circumstances."}], "batch": "a021", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2013Do5214", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask whether financial support to an affiliate company constitutes breach of trust, and the independent reading expressly addresses sham transactions by prior arrangement, intent for breach of trust, and the risk of loss relating to the existing guarantee obligations."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings construe in the same sense the establishment of breach of trust arising from support to a failing affiliate company, and the denial of a new risk of loss in the case of support used for repayment of existing guarantee obligations."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "Central elements such as reasonable collection measures, the circumstances and motives of the business judgment, and the probability of loss and gain overlap in more than half of the cases."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask about the scope of the new risk of loss where only a portion of the newly provided support funds was used for repayment of existing guarantee obligations."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a021", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2009Do5824", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask whether the corporation can be punished under the dual punishment provision on the basis of the employee's violation alone."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings understood that the corporation's neglect of its duty of care or duty of management and supervision is required, and that this must be determined by comprehensively weighing all circumstances."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The legislative purpose, the infringement of the protected legal interest, the violation and the harm, and the possibility of supervision and actual preventive measures substantially coincide."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks who bears the burden of proof as to performance of the duty, while the independent reading asks whether the actual measures taken by the corporation in this Case can be evaluated as performance of the duty."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "Since the original text presents failure to perform the duty as a requirement for punishment while its determination demands a comprehensive weighing of all circumstances, the first reading may focus on the requirements, and the independent reading on the method of determination."}], "batch": "a022", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2007Du6946", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings make the central question whether the imposition of a surcharge pursuant to the disposition standards of the ministerial decree amounts to a departure from or abuse of discretion."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "While both readings deny the external binding force of the disposition standards, they read that an arbitrary exercise or abuse of discretion must not be recognized absent reasonable grounds, and that the disposition at issue in this Case also can hardly be regarded as a violation."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The content of the violating conduct, the public interest purpose, the overlap between the infringement of the public interest and the disadvantage to individuals, and the propriety of the disposition in light of the statutes and subordinate statutes are likewise the same central element."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks for the standard that determines the illegality of the uniform disposition standards themselves, whereas the independent reading asks for the circumstances warranting recognition of the manifest impropriety of an individual surcharge disposition."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "Because the original text contains both general standards for comparing various interests and their application to the surcharge at issue in this Case, the first reading may attend to Application to the facts, and the independent reading to the overall determination."}], "batch": "a022", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2002Du12946", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask whether minutes of meetings at which decision-making has been completed may also become subject to non-disclosure, and the independent reading further specifies the criteria for non-disclosure of personal information."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings construed the matter as permitting the minutes to remain undisclosed even after the conclusion of decision-making, and as treating the personal information of the speaker in this Case as subject to non-disclosure."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "A high degree of likelihood that a significant impediment to Work performance will arise, Work fairness, the right to know, and the interests of participation and transparency overlap."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks whether the speaker's personal information may also be disclosed where the interest in disclosure is substantial, while the independent reading asks the scope of disclosure of the content of the statements, excluding personal information."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "Because the original text presents together the criteria for comparing the interests of disclosure and non-disclosure and the conclusion of non-disclosure of the speaker's personal information, the first reading may focus on concrete application, while the independent reading may focus on the balancing of interests."}], "batch": "a022", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "99Geu35", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask the scope and limits within which distinctions may be drawn among reorganization claims, and the independent reading further includes the method of handling an unlawful plan."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings read that reasonable distinctions are permissible, but that a full exemption of the commercial claim against a guarantor in this case violates equality, and the independent reading further adds a method for obtaining approval of the modification."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The central elements—a reasonable ground based on the nature of the claim, the characteristics of the claim against a guarantor, and the survival of the rights of junior shareholders—overlap by more than half."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks for additional criteria for determining the reasonable scope of distinctions among claims against a guarantor, and the independent reading asks to what specific degree the terms of repayment in this case may be modified on remand."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "Because the original text contains both the requirements for permitting reasonable distinctions and the determination of illegality of the full exemption in this case, the first reading may focus on states requirements, and the independent reading on Application to the facts."}], "batch": "a022", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "97Da20755", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask whether an act of guaranteeing the obligations of an affiliated company without direct economic consideration is a gratuitous act subject to avoidance."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings construed that where a guarantee or provision of security not under any legal obligation lacks economic consideration, it is a gratuitous act, and that circumstances such as the affiliated company relationship or the cause of the creditor's appearance do not alter the conclusion."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "A decrease in assets or increase in obligations without consideration, excessively slight counter-performance, the overlapping affiliated company relationship, and the central element of whether economic consideration is present are also the same."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask how slight the counter-performance must be for the act to be regarded as a gratuitous act in substance."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 6, "note": "The original text specifies the criteria for construing a gratuitous act but does not clarify its relation to existing precedent, so the first reading may be read as presenting a new standard, and the independent reading as being unable to confirm the relation to precedent."}], "batch": "a022", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "95Nu11405", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask whether a decision of limited unconstitutionality binds the courts and whether it excludes the effect or application of the Enforcement Decree adopted pursuant to the delegation."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings are to be read as maintaining the prior view, which denied the binding force of the decision of limited unconstitutionality and recognized the validity of the relevant tax provisions."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The continued existence of the text, the constitutional principles supporting the courts' interpretive authority, and the inherent limits of delegation overlap, while the independent reading adds the legislative history and purpose."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading raises the possibility of an adjudicatory complaint against a judgment denying binding force, while the independent reading raises the question of an unconstitutionality determination as to other tax provisions where the limits of delegation are unclear."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a023", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "93Da30402", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask about the meaning of becoming aware of the fact of violation, which is the starting point of the short-term extinctive prescription for the right to claim damages for unfair trade practices."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings require the victim's actual awareness, but read that it is sufficient if the awareness is at a level at which an ordinary person could recognize the existence of the unfair practice."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings present the purpose of market stability, the victim's actual awareness, and the level of awareness measured by the standard of an ordinary person."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks about the running of the extinctive prescription where the amount of damage or the tortfeasor cannot be identified, while the independent reading asks whether actual awareness can be recognized on the basis of a news report or the mere commencement of an investigation alone."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 6, "note": "In that the original text specified the time and level of awareness, it may be read as sets a new standard, but in that it did not clarify the relationship with existing precedents, it may be read as cannot be confirmed."}], "batch": "a023", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2016Do348", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask about the scope of seizure of a mobile phone voluntarily submitted by a third party and the admissibility of evidence of electronic information beyond that scope."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings limit the scope of seizure by concrete and individualized relevance and deny the admissibility of evidence beyond that scope and its cure by a later warrant."}, "factors": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading places emphasis on the point that the same type of offense alone is insufficient and on procedural safeguards and the impossibility of cure, while the independent reading places emphasis on the concrete differences between the circumstances of the investigation and the submission and the offenses, so that the two overlap by no more than half."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks about the boundary at which relevance between the offenses is denied, and the independent reading asks about the limit at which the third party's clear intent to submit defines the scope of seizure."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 6, "note": "If attention is paid to the point where the original text concretized the relevance between third-party submission and information from illegal filming, it can be read as a new standard; if attention is paid to the point where it explained that the existing legal principle on seizure of electronic information is applied to voluntary submission as well, it can be read as an extension of existing precedent."}], "batch": "a024", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2017Do13263", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "The independent reading includes the right to participate and the list of seized items as well, but both readings make proof of identity of the original of electronic documents and admissibility of evidence the central question."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings understand that identity of the original is a requirement for admissibility of evidence and that the prosecutor must assert and prove it specifically."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The statements of the persons involved, hash value comparison, the results of verification and expert examination, and specification of the file particulars are common factors."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks about the standard for the records required in the process of conversion and reproduction, and the independent reading asks whether identity in this case can be proved by additional evidence on remand."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a024", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2005Do7288", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask whether the amount of encumbrance must be deducted in calculating the gain from obtaining by fraud encumbered real property."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings take as the standard, absent special circumstances, the actual exchange value calculated by deducting the amount of encumbrances such as secured debts from the market value."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The amount of the secured claim, the amount of the attachment enforcement claim, the amount of the claim to be preserved by provisional attachment, and the principle of liability are common."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks whether other rights or restrictions on disposition are to be deducted, and the independent reading asks about the method of allocating the amount of debt where part of real property subject to common security is obtained by fraud."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a024", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2015Do12633", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask about the standard for determining whether support for an affiliate falls within the scope of reasonable business judgment."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings understand, in substance, that where the common interest, the reasonableness of the support, and related matters are comprehensively assessed and the support qualifies as reasonable business judgment, it is difficult to recognize intent to commit breach of trust."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "Five factors coincide: substantive integration, common interest, reasonableness of the support decision, lawfulness of the method of implementation, and expectation of compensation."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks about the limits on the capacity to provide support arising from financial deterioration, and the independent reading asks about the criteria for evaluating compensation commensurate with the burden and risk of the support."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 6, "note": "If attention is paid to the part where the original text added considerations peculiar to support for affiliates, it can be read as a new standard; if attention is paid to the part where it connected and concretized the general legal principle on intent for breach of trust and business judgment, it can be read as following existing precedent."}], "batch": "a024", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2000Da46184", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings make the presumption of intent or negligence on the part of the enforcement creditor under a preservative measure whose principal action has been finally decided against it the central question."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings understand that, absent special rebutting evidence, intent or negligence is presumed, and that in this case the presumption of negligence was not overturned."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The point that enforcement is carried out on a showing under the creditor's responsibility, and the final decision against the party in the principal action, are common, and whether the presumption of negligence was overturned also substantially overlaps."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask about concrete rebutting evidence sufficient to overturn the presumption, and the first reading identifies prior prevailing in litigation and admission of infringement as candidate circumstances."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "The original text contains together the presumption requirements of a final decision against the party in the principal action and the absence of special rebutting evidence, and a case denying the utility model patent holder's rebuttal of the presumption, so it may be read differently depending on whether weight is placed on the general requirements or on Application to the facts."}], "batch": "a024", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2024Do11686", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask whether a recommendation concealing a third party's interest in a prior purchase constitutes an unfair trade practice."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings, in substance, determine the matter comprehensively in light of the risk of harm to the market and include non-monetary personal benefits as well."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The relationship, the circumstances of holding, the intent to provide benefits, and the subject making the investment judgment coincide, and the expected benefit also substantially overlaps."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first asks whether a personal benefit can be recognized even in an ordinary acquaintance relationship, and the independent asks about the degree of concrete circumstances required to recognize the expected benefit and the market risk."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 6, "note": "Because the original text expands the discussion from the legal principle on concealment of one's own interest to concealment of a third party's interest, the first may focus on the presentation of the expanded decision factors, while the independent may focus on the continuity with the existing legal principle on unfair trade practices."}], "batch": "a025", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2022Mo1566", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask how to handle a quasi-appeal in which the seizure disposition or the investigative agency cannot be identified."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings understand that an opportunity to specify the disposition must be given and that the matter should not readily be rejected merely because of an error in identifying the investigative agency."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The difficulty of specifying the disposition, the character of a procedure not requiring opposing parties, and the designated investigative agency's denial of having made the disposition overlap as central factors."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first asks about the method of examination where the details of the disposition cannot be obtained because the investigative agency does not respond, and the independent asks about the point of rejection where the disposition remains unspecified even after an opportunity to specify is given."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a025", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2021Do1181", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask whether a limitation on relevance and a guarantee of the right to participate are required for the seizure of found information storage media where there has been a waiver of rights or an appearance thereof."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "The independent reading expressly states the special circumstances where the loss could have been known, but both readings are to the effect that a limitation on relevance does not apply in principle and that participation is not mandatory."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The waiver of rights or the appearance thereof and the special circumstances where the investigative agency knew or could have known of the circumstances of the loss overlap, so more than half of the central factors coincide."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first asks about the scope to which a limitation on relevance and the right to participate apply where the seizure was made with knowledge of the circumstances of the loss, and the independent asks about the concrete circumstances on which the fact of loss could be assessed as knowable."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 6, "note": "Because the original text explains the existing seizure categories and the legal principle on the power of disposition and management while concretizing the issues of relevance and participation regarding found information storage media, the first may focus on the concretization of the standard, while the independent may focus on the continuity with the existing legal principle."}], "batch": "a025", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2020Da202616", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "The first asks generally about exceptional transactions and the independent asks centered on a debt-to-equity swap, but a common question is whether, if one transaction is an exception, liability to return short-swing trading profits is excluded."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings share the conclusion that transactions in which there is no possibility whatsoever of using inside information are excluded from application, and that where only one transaction is an exception, there is in principle no liability to return."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The central factors overlap: absence of any possibility of using inside information, the purpose of restructuring and management normalization, and the fact that the terms of acquisition were not set arbitrarily."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask what special circumstances would warrant recognizing liability to return even where one transaction falls within the exception."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "Because the original text contains together the general requirements for exclusion from application and its concrete application to a debt-to-equity swap, the first may place weight on the general requirements, while the independent may place weight on Application to the facts."}], "batch": "a025", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2019Do13290", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask whether a seizure record containing a police officer's own observations can serve as corroborating evidence of a confession, separately from the lawfulness of the voluntary submission."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings recognize the independent evidentiary character, and the possibility of serving as corroborating evidence, of the entry of the circumstances of seizure where there is consent to evidence, and recognize that no subsequent warrant is required for items voluntarily submitted at the scene."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "Direct observation and the writer's signature and seal, consent to evidence, and independent evidentiary character distinct from the voluntary submission procedure are common central factors."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask about the requirements for using the entry of the circumstances of seizure as corroborating evidence where there is no consent to evidence."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a025", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2017Ma5883", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask about the effect that some representative parties' lack of qualification has on the examination for approval of a class action."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "The effect is the same: the possibility of constituting qualified representative parties and the statutory requirements for approval are examined, and approval should be granted where the requirements are met."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The point that the action can be conducted by a single representative party, adjustment of the scope of the total membership, the eligibility of the representative parties, and the statutory requirements for approval overlap."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks about the standard for reviewing the fair representation of the remaining representative parties, and the independent reading asks whether an opportunity for additional appointment should be given where there is no qualified person at all."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 6, "note": "If attention is paid to the point where the original text specifically set out the method of examination where unqualified representative parties arise, it can be read as a new standard, but if attention is paid to the point where it did not clarify its relationship with existing precedent, it can be read as cannot be confirmed."}], "batch": "a026", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2017Da265129", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask primarily about the bankruptcy trustee's succession to the lawsuit and the jurisdiction over the lawsuit changed to an action of avoidance."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "The meaning is the same: even an improper creditor revocation action may be succeeded to and changed into an action of avoidance, and if the change is made in the first instance, the court in which the bankruptcy case is pending has exclusive jurisdiction."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "Although the manner of expression differs, being in terms of the legal principle and the procedural situation, the filing of an action after the declaration of bankruptcy, succession and amendment of the claim, and the distinction of jurisdiction according to the court in which the case is pending and the instance overlap."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks about the authority to hear the case where succession and amendment occur in the appellate instance, while the independent reading asks about the point in time serving as the criterion for compliance with the period for exercising the right of avoidance."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a026", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2016Da247209", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask about the conditions under which an act extinguishing a specific obligation with borrowed funds from a third party is excluded from the scope of avoidance."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "They share the same import: if actual repayment in accordance with an agreement on the use of proceeds and the non-decrease of assets are recognized, the act is not subject to avoidance, and an implied agreement may also suffice."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "Where the agreement on the use of proceeds and the actual performance coincide, the independent reading specifies the elements of repayment by means of borrowed funds and the non-decrease of assets in terms of timing and method, lending conditions, and the relationship between the parties."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks about the criteria for assessing that assets did not decrease before and after repayment, while the independent reading asks about the circumstances for recognizing an implied agreement regarding the use of proceeds."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a026", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2015Da204762", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "The independent reading encompasses the demand for distribution and the time limit for substantiation as well, but the focus of both readings is the scope and calculation criteria of preferential distribution for wage claim holders holding a maximum amount mortgage."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "While permitting substantiation prior to the finalization of the distribution table, the intent is the same: calculation of the wages of continuing employees and whether grounds for payment of retirement benefits have arisen are based on the deadline for demands for distribution."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "Although the expression of the point in time serving as the wage standard for continuing employees differs, the existence of termination of the employment relationship, the time limit for the arising of grounds for payment of retirement benefits, and substantiation prior to the finalization of the distribution table overlap."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks about the priority of protection in other procedures of wages and retirement benefits arising after the deadline, while the independent reading asks about the materials and degree necessary for substantiation of the right to preferential payment."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a026", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2011Da56637", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "The independent reading adds the burden of proof of good faith, but both readings ask whether a security assignment of collective claims in the form of a preliminary agreement and the exercise of the right to consummate the preliminary agreement may be subject to avoidance."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both are the same in substance in treating the exercise of the right to consummate the preliminary agreement on the basis of a preferential act and collusion as subject to avoidance, denying the reasonableness exception, and imposing on the beneficiary the burden of proof of good faith."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The first reading emphasizes general elements and the independent reading emphasizes concrete circumstances, but more than half of the central elements overlap: preferential provision of security, the debtor's property and business condition, and collusion."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks about cases where an agreement made before the crisis and a consummation of the preliminary agreement at the time of the crisis combine, while the independent reading asks about circumstances in which the exercise may be equated with the debtor's act even without collusion."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "The original states the general standard for preferential acts, identification of acts, and reasonableness, and applies it to the specific course of default and the fact of collusion as well, so it can be read as states requirements if attention is paid to the general standard, or as Application to the facts if attention is paid to the application to facts."}], "batch": "a026", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2009Do11448", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "The independent reading also covers the number of days of pretrial detention and the effect of the sentencing guidelines, but whether the guidelines may be referred to in prosecution Cases arising before the guidelines took effect is a common issue."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings read that referring to the sentencing guidelines is not a retroactive application of an unfavorable law, and that no separate determination on crediting the days of pretrial detention is necessary."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The central elements—the automatic inclusion of days of pretrial detention and deference based on the referential nature of the sentencing guidelines and the appropriateness of their content—substantially overlap."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks whether reference to an unfavorable amendment made after the offense is permissible, while the independent reading asks as to the limits of referring to the changed standards in Cases prosecuted before the change."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "Because the original text describes together the general effect of the sentencing guidelines and their application to Cases prosecuted before entry into force, the first reading may give weight to concrete application, while the independent reading may give weight to the statement of general standards."}], "batch": "a027", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2005Do4471", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "The independent reading addresses the establishment and proof of a false entry, but shares the central question of whether criminal liability is succeeded to under the dual punishment provision of a dissolved corporation."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings denied the succession of criminal liability and read a case in which, while aware of the distortion, only an appropriate opinion was entered as falling within a false entry."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The relevant circumstantial facts, awareness of the distortion of the balance carried forward from the preceding period, and the penal nature of the punishment of a corporation: more than half of the factors overlap as common central elements."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks whether liability succession is also denied in a merger undertaken for the purpose of evading criminal liability, while the independent reading asks about the degree of distortion entered to avoid a false entry and the reflection of the opinion."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 6, "note": "The original presents the legal principle but does not specify its relationship to precedent, so the first reading may place weight on the establishment of a standard and the independent reading on the reconfirmation of the general legal principle."}, {"axis": 7, "note": "The original explains the methods of proving falsity and intent but does not specify the party bearing the burden of proof, so the first reading may presuppose the role of the prosecutor in a criminal case, while the independent reading may focus on whether express reference is made."}], "batch": "a027", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "99Du5207", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "The independent reading also includes the standard of discretion control, but the question of whether the standard amount of the fine is a fixed amount or a maximum limit remains the same."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings construed the standard amount as a maximum limit and read that an appropriate fine must be determined by considering various circumstances."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The degree of social condemnation, circumstances of other penalties, the scale of unlawful gains, and the content of the violation are common, so more than half of the central elements overlap."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks under what conditions a disposition within the upper limit becomes unlawful, while the independent reading asks the relative weight of each element for determining the degree of reduction."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a027", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "98Do3097", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask whether the amendment, which excludes insider trading by a simple registered corporation from the scope of punishment, constitutes an abolition of the punishment."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings held that, as a reflective measure directed at the prior regulation, it constitutes an abolition of the punishment arising from the enactment or repeal of laws and regulations after the crime."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The central factors overlap by more than half: the point that the company is one that has not obtained association registration, and the low likelihood of problems arising in terms of transaction fairness and investor protection."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "Although the assumptions of a raising of statutory penalties and of changes in market conditions differ, the common unresolved point is how to distinguish an abolition of the punishment where reflective reasons and policy reasons for a reduction in punishment are intertwined."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a027", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "96Da50445", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "The independent reading also encompasses the principle of good faith and abuse of rights, but the central question of whether the company's awareness of harm is required for the avoidance of a repayment after a suspension of payment and the like remains the same."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings held that the recipient's awareness is sufficient, that the company's awareness of harm is not required, and that the administrator's exercise of the right of avoidance is neither a violation of the principle of good faith nor an abuse of rights."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The point in time of the act of extinction of debt, the object of the recipient's awareness, and the separateness of the company and the administrator and the administrator's exclusive authority substantially coincide."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks about the requirements for the avoidance of a repayment during an immediate appeal against a ruling following dismissal of the application for commencement, while the independent reading asks who bears the burden of proof regarding the recipient's awareness."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a027", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "94Do2792", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "The independent reading also asks the general meaning of material information, but the central question of both readings is the same: whether the undisclosed fire loss and settlement deficit information constitutes material information."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings compare materiality and the likelihood of occurrence from the standpoint of a reasonable investor and, in substance, recognize the information in this case as material information."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The independent reading cites capital stock as a separate element, but the central elements—the materiality of the information, the likelihood of occurrence, the scale of the fire loss and settlement deficit, and whether the information was undisclosed—overlap by more than half."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "The first reading emphasizes the scale of the loss relative to capital stock, but both readings ask where lies the boundary at which a loss or deficit smaller than in this case is recognized as material information."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "Because the original text presents the general determination criteria for material information while applying them to specific loss and deficit information, the first reading may emphasize Application to the facts, while the independent reading may emphasize states requirements."}], "batch": "a028", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "92Do1983", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask how the amount of gain in a case of negotiable securities fraud is calculated and whether a change of victim without a change in the indictment is permissible."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings recognize calculation of the amount of gain based on the face value and permit a change of victim on the condition of identity and the guarantee of the right of defense."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The elements of face value, identity of the charged facts, disadvantage to the right of defense, and consistency of the fundamental facts are all the same."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask whether the face-value standard can also be applied to negotiable securities whose actual value differs from their face value."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a029", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2001Da36580", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask whether the return of the management premium is included in the subject of return and whether exceptions not enumerated in the Enforcement Decree may be recognized."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings take the position that the management premium is subject to return, but that the return provision does not apply to transactions in which there is no possibility whatsoever of the use of internal information."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The central elements overlap: the character of the consideration for the shares themselves, the character of the grounds for exception, the guarantee of property rights, and the absence of any possibility of the use of internal information."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask what the specific types of transactions are in which there is no possibility whatsoever of the use of internal information."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a029", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2000Do4444", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "The independent reading focuses on concrete acts, but both readings ask whether the representative director's conduct constitutes a fraudulent unfair transaction."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings make an objective determination by comprehensively considering all circumstances and recognize the relevant conduct as a fraudulent unfair transaction."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The central elements—the actor's status, the company's management condition and stock price trends, and the circumstances before and after the conduct—overlap by more than half."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks whether the purpose of raising operating funds leaves room to negate the purpose of unjust enrichment, while the independent reading asks whether disclosure of the uncertainty of business prospects is sufficient to exclude falsity."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 6, "note": "In that the original text specifies the standard of objective comprehensive judgment, it may be read as sets a new standard, but in that it does not clarify the relationship with prior precedents, it may be read as cannot be confirmed."}], "batch": "a029", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2021Du59908", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask whether royalties for the use, in Korea, of patent technology not registered in Korea constitute domestic source income."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings construe the use as use of patent technology and recognize royalties for use in Korea as domestic source income."}, "factors": {"same": false, "note": "The use of patent technology and the territoriality principle overlap, but the first reading emphasizes the concept of use common to domestic use and intangible assets, while the independent reading emphasizes the absence of a definition in the convention, the application of domestic law, and materials of treaty interpretation."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask for the method of separately identifying and calculating, within the royalties paid on a lump-sum basis, the amount attributable to the use of patent technology in Korea."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a029", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2013Da64908", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask whether the delay damages arising from the bankruptcy trustee's default in performance after the declaration of bankruptcy, with respect to wages and the like owed before the declaration, constitute estate claims (claims against the bankruptcy estate)."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings include default in the discharge of duties among the acts of the bankruptcy trustee and treat the delay damages as an estate claim under Article 473, subparagraph 4."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The default in the discharge of duties and the right to claim damages arising from default in performance after the declaration, which constitute half of the elements of the first reading, overlap, and these are the central elements."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks at what point and from what starting date default in performance after the declaration of bankruptcy is established, while the independent reading asks whether the delay damages arising before the declaration of bankruptcy constitute an estate claim."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 6, "note": "If the general legal principle explanation in the original is read as an application of the existing legal principle, it may be classified as 'follows existing precedent'; however, because neither a citation of precedent nor the relationship to prior precedent is expressly stated, it may also be read as 'cannot be confirmed'."}], "batch": "a029", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2005Do9858", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask whether litigation fraud is established, and at what time it is consummated, where a party has obtained a final and conclusive judgment winning an action to cancel a false conservation registration."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings treat the status enabling one to obtain ownership in one's own name as a pecuniary benefit, and read litigation fraud as consummated upon the judgment becoming final and conclusive, while only the first reading adds a change of precedent."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings share the false assertion of ownership, the possibility of registration in one's own name, the commencement of execution within the recidivism period, and the intent to receive remuneration for a referral, and only the first reading adds proof of confiscation and additional collection (confiscation of criminal proceeds)."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks how to calculate the value of the pecuniary benefit acquired, while the independent reading asks whether that benefit is acquired even where registration in one's own name is impossible."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a030", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2013Do2857", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask what standard should be used to calculate the amount of gain from embezzlement for aggravated punishment where a maximum amount mortgage has been established arbitrarily over real property held in custody."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings take the amount of gain to be the amount of secured debt, or the maximum amount of the claim, provided as new security, and read that the aggravated punishment based on the KRW 500 million threshold cannot be applied in this case."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings cite strict and careful valuation, proportionality between crime and punishment and the principle of responsibility, and the amount of secured debt, or the maximum amount of the claim, as central elements."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask which amount should be selected as the amount of gain where the actual amount of secured debt and the maximum amount of the claim differ."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a030", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2004Do1164", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings center on the specification of the charge of market price manipulation and the determination of subjective purpose, while the independent reading also expressly addresses the number of offenses and the existence of a conspiracy relationship."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings recognize the specification of the charge through the entire course of conduct, awareness of the possibility as to the purpose, and a comprehensive consideration of the transaction circumstances, while the independent reading adds explanations concerning the formation of the conspiracy, among other matters."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The two readings share the elements specifying the entire course of conduct, the nature of the securities, the total number issued, the motives and types of transactions, and the prices and transaction circumstances."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading raises the specification of the charge and the right of defense as to a conspirator who did not participate in the execution, while the independent reading raises the criteria for severance of a single comprehensive offense in light of interruption in time or a change of purpose."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a030", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2010Da37141", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask whether an individual rehabilitation claim holder may newly bring a creditor revocation action after a commencement decision in individual rehabilitation proceedings."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings construe that, after the commencement decision, the right of avoidance for equal repayment must be exercised, so an individual creditor revocation action may not be brought, and the independent reading specifies that it is a claim listed in the list."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings cite the collective nature of individual rehabilitation, the purpose of the right of avoidance, the limitation on demands for repayment of claims listed in the list, and the purpose of preserving the separate property subject to liability underlying the action for revocation."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings raise the possibility of a revocation action by a creditor not listed in the list of creditors, and the first reading adds the possibility after the procedure has been dismissed."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 6, "note": "The original text derives the restriction on bringing an action from the purport of the relevant provisions and the nature of the procedure, but does not make explicit its Relation to precedent, so the first reading may note the presentation of a new standard, while the independent reading may note the absence of information with which to confirm Relation to precedent."}], "batch": "a030", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2006Da73218", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask whether liability to return short-swing trading profits arises from stock trading by an officer and employee under suspension from office, and what the requirements for excluding its application are."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings understand that the exclusion may apply only where there is no possibility whatsoever of unfair use of internal information, and that liability to return is recognized for voluntary trading during suspension from office."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The factors presented by both readings are all the same: the voluntary nature of the trading, the possibility of access to internal information, the status at the time of purchase or sale, and that the possibility of access cannot be excluded merely by a disposition of suspension from office."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks to what degree an adversarial relationship with management must exist before the possibility of access to information is excluded, and the independent reading asks what information-blocking measures are necessary to exclude it."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a030", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2009Ma168", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Although the independent reading extends to include the interest in confirmation (standing for declaratory judgment) in relation to third parties, the central questions of the litigation proceedings of disputes involving the association and the membership qualification of owners of unauthorized structures remain the same."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "The two readings read in the same direction the principles concerning the appeal litigation (administrative litigation) over the approval of establishment, the civil action over an executive's status, and the membership qualification of owners of unauthorized structures, together with the exceptions under the articles of incorporation."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The procedural situation of being after the approval of establishment, the instability or risk in the legal relationship, and the regulation of the proliferation of unauthorized housing overlap, and the central elements are the same."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks the circumstances under which a civil action seeking confirmation of the invalidity of a resolution of establishment is exceptionally permitted, while the independent reading asks the scope within which the articles of incorporation may grant membership qualification to owners of unauthorized structures."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a031", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2001Do2196", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "The independent reading also encompasses the determination of habituality, but the central question remains the same: whether a formal reinvestment constitutes a separate offense of fraud, and the scope of the effect of the indictment on habitual fraud."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings, taking actual gain as the criterion, deny the establishment of a separate offense of fraud for formal reinvestment and treat a separate prosecution for part of the habitual fraud as double prosecution."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "Actual gain, the absence of actual receipt of funds, the circumstances bearing on the determination of habituality, and the temporal benchmark of the time of pronouncement of judgment are common to both."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "The examples of additional acquisition of profits and provision of collateral or waiver of rights differ, but they jointly ask whether a separate offense of fraud is established when additional property harm is added through formal reinvestment."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a031", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2013Do9933", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask for the criteria by which to determine the impropriety of an investment opportunity or trading means provided to a specific investor only."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings were taken to mean that impropriety, in light of commonly accepted social standards, is determined by comprehensively considering the characteristics of the market and the transaction, the circumstances of the provision, the risk of loss, and the impairment of trust, among other factors."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The characteristics of the market and its participants, the transaction structure, the motive and method of the provision, the risk of loss to ordinary investors, and the impairment of trust in fairness all overlap."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks about the determination to be made after the supervisory authority establishes clear speed-differentiation standards, while the independent reading asks about the degree to which a superior position in the transaction reaches a substantial impairment of trust."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a031", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2009Do10092", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask whether items and photographs seized without a warrant from a person lacking standing to submit them may be used as evidence by consent."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings deny the admissibility of evidence of the seized items and photographs, and read the conclusion as unchanged even by the consent of the defendant's side."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The absence of the submitter's standing, seizure without a warrant, the importance of the warrant requirement, and the evidentiary consent of the defendant's side are common to both."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks for the boundary of cases such as where the submitter is a lawful possessor, while the independent reading asks about the conditions for the admissibility of evidence of derivative evidence obtained following an unlawful seizure."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a031", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2001Da55116", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "The independent reading covers even the exception to the prohibition on set-off, but the central question remains the same: whether an abstract security-provision agreement gives rise to specific obligations of the bankrupt debtor."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings required a specific claim for performance and read the avoidance of the relevant security provision and the non-allowance of set-off of obligations assumed in that procedure in the same direction."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The central elements overlap: specific obligations and claim for performance, an agreement to provide security if necessary, and the assumption of obligations as part of the security provision procedure."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask to what degree a security-provision agreement must be specified before it is recognized as a specific obligation for which performance can be claimed."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "Because the original text sets out the general standards of specific obligations and claim for performance while applying them to the actual security-provision agreement and the assumption of obligations, the primary reading may place weight on states requirements and the independent reading on Application to the facts."}], "batch": "a031", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2006Do1614", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask how to calculate the amount of gains from defrauded funds that were reinvested, and whether investment solicitations directed at acquaintances fall within similar deposit-taking."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both are to the same effect: the entire amount of defrauded funds is aggregated without deducting returned amounts, and solicitations directed at acquaintances also constitute similar deposit-taking where the opportunity to participate remains open."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "Although the emphasis on the willingness or ability to pay and on whether gains were actually realized differs, more than half of the central elements overlap: the aggregation of defrauded funds and, in light of the funding structure, the openness of the opportunity to participate."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask to what extent the openness of the investment opportunity may be recognized where there is an introduction route or restrictions on participation."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a032", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2006Do2718", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "The first places its focus on specific instances of repeated fictitious orders, while the independent places its focus on the general requirements for establishment, but the central question is the same, namely whether futures trading market manipulation is established."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "A possibility of price change is sufficient, and the judgment that the repeated large-volume fictitious orders and cancellations in this Case constitute market manipulation is the same."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The relationship between futures and spot transactions, the motives and form of trading, the trends in price and trading volume, the surrounding trading circumstances before and after, and economic rationality and fairness all coincide."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first asks the criterion for judging the fictitious orders of general investors with no market dominance, while the independent asks the causation of the profit required for aggravated punishment and the proof of the amount."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "Because the original text explains the requirements of the purpose of inducement and the possibility of price change while also expressly stating the totality of circumstances of circumstantial evidence, weight can be placed on states requirements and totality of circumstances, respectively."}, {"axis": 7, "note": "Because the original text explains the degree of proof required for the establishment of a crime, the prosecution's burden can be read out, but because it does not expressly identify the party bearing the proof, it may also be classified as not addressed."}], "batch": "a032", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2015Da33656", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask about the reference point for compliance with the exclusion period where the bankruptcy trustee, within the scope of succession, changed the claim through exercise of the right of avoidance."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Although the first reading adds a specific explanation of application, the gist is the same: unless there are special circumstances, the point at which the initial creditor revocation action was pending serves as the standard."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The emphasis on a properly filed action and the scope of succession, or on the purpose of bankruptcy proceedings, differs, but the central elements of identity of the object of the right and succession to the effects of the litigation overlap by half."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask whether there are special circumstances excluding application of the time when the initial action was first pending, and the first reading further adds the handling of claims exceeding the scope of succession."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 6, "note": "In that the original text derives a general standard for determining the exclusion period, it can be read as sets a new standard, but since it does not specify the relationship with existing precedent, it can also be read as cannot be confirmed."}], "batch": "a032", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2013Da11621", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask for the amount of loss incurred by investors who acquired shares through dissemination of false information, etc., and the calculation of the normal stock price underlying that amount."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "The difference between the acquisition amount and the normal stock price, the exception where the shares are sold at or above the normal stock price, and reasonable financial and economic estimation methods were read identically."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The emphasis on statistical significance and on whether a sale occurred differs, but the core elements—the actual acquisition amount, the stock price that would have prevailed but for the unlawful act, and comparison through public indicators—overlap by more than half."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first asks about the allocation of causation ratios where several unlawful acts jointly contributed, while the independent one asks about the criteria for choosing among different models for estimating the normal stock price."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a032", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2007Do10056", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask about the concurrence of offenses in letter of credit fraud, the calculation of the amount of gain, and the criteria for determining a money lending contract."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "The denial of a single comprehensive offense of fraud where the methods of commission differ, the calculation of the amount of gain without deducting the payment amount, and the determination of money lending based on the content of the contract are all the same."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The central elements—the difference in methods of commission, the distinction by each victimized bank, the aggregate amount of letter of credit payments, and the content of the contract—coincide in more than half."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first asks, where multiple financial institutions are involved, who the parties to the loan are and whether the standard is maintained under current law as well; the independent case asks, where sham transactions and window-dressed accounting are used simultaneously, about the concurrence of offenses."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a032", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2013Da26708", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "The independent reading covers the amount of damages and extinctive prescription as well, but the central question is the causation between the duty of blood product manufacturers to prevent infection and the infection."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "The first reading focuses on the limits of denying causation on account of the failure to conduct a medical interview, while the independent reading focuses on the requirements for presuming causation, but the direction of recognizing a heightened duty of care and responsibility for the infection is the same."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "More than half of the factors overlap with the central decision factors, including the level of medical science, the gravity of the legal interest invaded, and the temporal proximity between use and infection."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks about the degree of proof required for the infection-reducing effect of the medical interview, and the independent reading asks about the allocation of the scope of responsibility among multiple manufacturers."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "The original text contains both the proof requirements for presuming causation and the decision factors for a comprehensive assessment of the breach of the duty of care and the possibility of contamination, so depending on the emphasis it may be read as \"states requirements\" or as \"totality of circumstances\"."}], "batch": "a033", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2000Do90", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask whether the second information recipient who received the information on a separate occasion can be punished directly as a violator or as an accomplice."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings read that, because there is no direct punishment provision and the involvement is necessarily expected, punishment is not possible even if the general requirements for an accomplice are met."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The central elements overlap: receipt of information on a separate occasion, the necessarily expected involvement of the second information recipient, and the absence of a punishment provision."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "The first reading specifies joint participation in the act of direct use, but both readings ask whether accomplice liability can arise where the person was involved from the initial stage of receiving the information."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a033", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2013Da2757", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask whether an act of obstructing the fulfillment of the early repayment condition through risk-hedging transactions violates the duty to protect investors under the principle of good faith."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings require the reasonableness of risk-hedging transactions and read that there is sufficient room to view the large-scale sales in this Case as an obstruction of fulfillment of the condition contrary to good faith."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The central elements of conflict of interest, the timing and method of the transactions, and the impact on fair price formation and fulfillment of the condition overlap."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks about the settlement of maturity repayment funds already paid after fulfillment of the condition is deemed, while the independent reading asks about the permissible scale of risk-hedging transactions and the limits of price impact."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 6, "note": "In that the original text sets out specific obligations for risk-hedging transactions, it may be read as a new standard, but because it does not clarify the relationship with existing precedent, it may also be read as cannot be confirmed."}], "batch": "a033", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2018Da248855", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "The independent reading also includes the distinguishing criteria of a contractual penalty, but the central question of both readings is whether the reduction provisions may be applied by analogy to a contractual penalty."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings consider the separate damages clause and the possibility of double recovery in distinguishing a contractual penalty and, it is read, maintained the existing precedent that denies reduction through analogous application."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "More than half of the factors, including the content of the contract and the circumstances of its execution, the purpose of the agreement, and the possibility of double recovery, overlap with the central factor for distinguishing a contractual penalty."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask for concrete criteria for controlling excessive or unfair contractual penalties by rendering them void in whole or in part."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 7, "note": "Although one can read out the burden of proof of the party asserting, with respect to the presumption of a stipulated damages amount and the special circumstances that overturn it, if one notes that the attribution of the burden of proof is not expressly specified, it may be read as not addressed."}], "batch": "a033", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2008Do9213", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask for the method of calculating the amount of profit or loss of an act of breach of trust in which security was provided to a third party in violation of the obligation to establish a maximum amount mortgage."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings calculate only the lost collateral value and exclude the collateral value remaining after establishment of the maximum amount mortgage in favor of the third party, it is read."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The market value of the real estate, the amount of the senior secured claim, the agreed collateral value, the lost value and the residual value substantially overlap."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "The first reading concretizes the valuation date and the standard for the claim amount, but both readings ask for the valuation criteria and methods for determining the lost collateral value."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a033", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2001Da39473", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask about the effect of a set-off special agreement that violates the guidelines and the possibility of assessing harmfulness by separating only the special agreement in an integrated transaction."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "The gist is the same: a special agreement is not invalid merely because it violates the standards/rules, and harmfulness is judged based on the transaction as a whole."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The central factors overlap: violation of the standards/rules, the effect of the transaction as a whole on the creditor, and the limitation on separately assessing individual agreements."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "They commonly ask for concrete criteria distinguishing the unity of a transaction, and the first reading adds the effect of actual fund movements."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 6, "note": "If the assessment of harmfulness on the basis of the transaction as a whole in the original is viewed as setting forth criteria, it may be read as sets a new standard; but in that the Relation to precedent is not specified, it may be read as cannot be confirmed."}], "batch": "a034", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2001Do4947", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "The question of whether the joint principal offender liability of a conspiracy for market manipulation is established overlaps, and the independent reading also encompasses bad loans, concurrence of offenses (competition of offenses), and the scope of reversal (vacatur)."}, "answer": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading emphasizes implied conspiracy extending even to incidental market manipulation methods and a full reversal on the basis of a single comprehensive offense, while the independent reading presents the general requirements of conspiracy and a reversal together on the basis of the concurrent-offense relationship under the preceding clause."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "Reasonable measures for recovery of claims, the meeting of minds in a conspiracy, a single and continuing criminal intent, and the identity of the protected legal interest substantially overlap."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks about the scope of market manipulation methods reached by the conspiracy, and the independent reading asks about the boundary at which a unified criminal intent is negated by a temporal break or a change of purpose."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 7, "note": "Since the original explains strict proof of conspiracy and proof through circumstantial facts, one can read out the prosecution's burden, but in that it does not specify the subject bearing the burden of proof, it may be read as not addressed."}], "batch": "a034", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2003Ma1477", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask about the possibility of a claim to enjoin expressive acts based on the right to honor and the requirements for permitting a prior restraint."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "While recognizing a claim for injunction based on the right to honor, it reads truthfulness, a purpose in the public interest, and serious harm difficult to restore as the exceptional requirements for a prior restraint."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The decision factors are the same: truthfulness, a purpose in the public interest, serious harm difficult to restore, and the necessity of the injunction."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks about the relationship between the requirements of truthfulness and public interest purpose and the exception to a provisional disposition without hearing, and the independent reading asks about the concrete criteria for recognizing serious harm difficult to restore."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 6, "note": "If one notes the formulation of concrete requirements for a prior restraint in the original, it may be read as sets a new standard; if one notes the description deriving the requirements from the Constitution and the general legal principle of the right to honor, it may be read as following existing precedent; however, the Relation to precedent is not specified."}], "batch": "a034", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2002Geu121", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "The central question of property valuation for the protection of rights and the criteria for differential treatment in a reorganization plan is the same, and the independent reading also includes the reduction of the rights of creditors and shareholders."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "The gist is the same: valuation based on liquidation value and adverse treatment of a claim against a guarantor consistent with substantive equality are permitted."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The ratio of capital reduction, the ratio of equity dilution upon new share issuance, and the repayment amount and ratio of reorganization claims are common central factors."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks about the exception to the liquidation-value valuation principle, and the independent reading asks about the limit at which adverse repayment terms for a claim against a guarantor run counter to substantive equality."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "If one notes the permitted conditions of liquidation value protection and substantive equality in the original, it may be read as states requirements; if one notes the part that comprehensively assesses the relative priority of reductions of rights across various equity and repayment factors, it may be read as totality of circumstances."}], "batch": "a034", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2006Da47677", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "The central question of the effect of a transaction without a board resolution is the same, and the first reading adds the burden of proof, while the independent reading adds the liability for damages in the event of invalidity."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "The gist is the same: the transaction is valid unless the counterparty knew or could have known of the nonexistence of the resolution, and the company proves that circumstance, and the independent reading also explains the liability for compensation in the event of invalidity."}, "factors": {"same": false, "note": "Awareness of the nonexistence of the resolution and the same economic purpose overlap, but the first reading cites reliance on internal procedures and active participation in the breach of trust, while the independent reading cites the intermediary role, loss caused by reliance on the guarantee, and the relevance of required measures."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks about the scope in which a duty to verify arises in transactions with an arranging or intermediary company, and the independent reading asks to what degree of measures the duty to verify recognized in other transaction types must be performed."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a034", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2011Ma201", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Although the independent reading also includes the time point serving as the criteria for judgment, whether insincerity may be recognized solely from repeated applications is a common issue."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "The gist is the same: procedural error or an improper purpose must be examined, and a dismissal cannot be entered solely on the basis of a history of repeated applications."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "Procedural error, improper purpose, the absence of a provision prohibiting reapplication, and the possibility of a change of circumstances are common."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks about general criteria for recognizing a change of circumstances, and the independent reading asks whether grounds for the insincerity of the relevant debtor may be recognized after remand."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a035", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2016Do11318", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "They commonly ask about the determination of the unity and continuity of criminal intent required to recognize a single comprehensive offense in repeated property crimes."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "The gist is the same: while recognizing the possibility that a single comprehensive offense may be established, the circumstances of the offense and whether the criminal intent was broken or renewed must be carefully judged."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The method and manner of the offense, motive, temporal interval, continuation of the opportunity or relationship, and the break or renewal of criminal intent all coincide."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "Although the independent reading also includes changes in the method of the offense, they commonly ask about the concrete boundary at which temporal intervals and the like lead to a break or renewal of criminal intent."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a035", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2009Do5655", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "They commonly ask about the establishment of the crime of occupational breach of trust in obtaining personal benefits through a fictitious supplier and the valuation of the company's loss."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "The gist is the same: while recognizing the establishment of the crime of occupational breach of trust, if a discountable price cannot be specified, the entire profit obtained cannot be regarded as the amount of loss."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The central factors overlap: discountability, intent to obtain personal benefits, use of a fictitious company, and difficulty in specifying the discountable price."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "They commonly ask about the materials and methods necessary for calculating the amount of loss when a discountable price can be specified."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "Since the original sets out the general conditions of breach of duty and valuation of the amount of loss and applies them to the representative director's feed additive transactions, the first reading may place weight on stating the conditions, and the independent reading on concrete application."}], "batch": "a035", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2011Do15056", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "The independent reading also includes the scope of collusive transactions, but the central question of the scope and method of calculating profits obtained through market manipulation overlaps."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "The gist is the same: only profits with causation are calculated, the prosecution proves them, and unrealized profits are assessed as of the time of termination without deducting expected transaction costs."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The distinction of the subjects to whom gains and losses are attributed, normal factors of stock price increases, and the valuation of profits at the time of termination overlap, and they also share the central factor of distinguishing profits with causation."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks about the method of separating market or industry-wide gains from market manipulation profits, and the independent reading asks about exceptional circumstances in which the time point for valuing unrealized profits may differ."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a035", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2005Da71710", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "The independent reading also encompasses whether the subject of avoidance and the exempted amount constitute unjust enrichment, but the central question of the revival of the claim prior to return and the possibility of set-off overlaps."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "The substance is the same: an assignment of a claim for the purpose of payment is a preferential act, and the claim does not revive until return or repayment, so that set-off is unavailable."}, "factors": {"same": false, "note": "The preferential act and the revival of the claim after return overlap, but instead of the diminution of the general estate and the restriction on the exercise of rights outside the procedure in the first reading, the independent reading cites the point in time of suspension of payments and the like, exclusion from filing, and non-performance, and finds that overlap of the overall elements is insufficient."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks whether the loss of a claim that could no longer be asserted after repayment may be set off as a claim for unjust enrichment, while the independent reading asks about the partial revival of the claim arising from partial return."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a035", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2014Do12619", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "The independent reading narrows its focus to the joint and several guaranty matter, but both ask whether an aggravated penalty may be imposed when the amount of profit cannot be calculated."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both read that where the amount of profit cannot be calculated, no aggravated penalty may be imposed, and that the determination in this case treating the entire principal and interest of the loan as the amount of profit was erroneous."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The demand for strict calculation of the amount of profit and its grounds, the prospect of rising real estate prices and rents, and the principal obligor's substantive ability to pay with his own resources substantially overlap."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "Both ask about the criteria and methods for specifically calculating the amount of profit under a joint and several guaranty of a principal obligor who has partial ability to pay."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a036", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2005Do4915", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both ask whether a counterparty who, knowing the circumstances of breach of trust, demanded and received the grant of security over the company's real estate may be held liable as an aider."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both read that where there is no active participation and the transaction possesses social appropriateness, liability as an aider cannot be recognized even if the breach of trust was known."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "Active participation, social appropriateness, and the residual security value after deducting the value of prior-ranking security overlap, and the central elements of the accomplice determination are also the same."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "Both ask about the specific boundary at which a counterparty's demand for security or transaction terms changes into active participation."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a036", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2003Da69607", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both ask about investor losses caused by market price manipulation and the method of calculating the normal share price underlying them."}, "answer": {"same": false, "note": "The basic method of calculating the difference and the method of estimating the normal share price are the same, but the independent reading contains an exception that where the shares were sold at a price higher than the normal share price, the selling price serves as the standard, whereas the first reading omits this."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The normal share price, the manipulated price that is the actual purchase price, statistical significance, and appropriate disclosure indicators overlap, so the central elements are the same."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks about the reasonableness of the estimation period and the selection of the underlying indicators in the regression analysis, while the independent reading asks about the priority among multiple reasonable methods yielding different results."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 6, "note": "In that the original text presented a specific method of calculating damages, it may be read as a new standard, but in that it did not clarify the relationship with existing precedent, it may be read as cannot be confirmed."}], "batch": "a036", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2001Da78898", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both ask about the possibility of avoidance under the Bankruptcy Act of a payment in accordance with the tenor of the obligation that is not avoidable under the Composition Act, and the independent reading expressly addressed the assessment of appropriateness and the burden of proof as well."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both read that avoidance is available if the requirements under the Bankruptcy Act are met, but that exceptions recognized as appropriate are excluded, and that these circumstances must be asserted and proved by the beneficiary."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The bankrupt's property and business status, the source of the funds for payment, the relationship with the creditor, and whether there was collusion or coercion to make payment overlap."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "The first reading narrows its focus to payments made for the maintenance of the business, but both ask about the specific circumstances warranting recognition of the appropriateness of unequal payment."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "Focusing on the fact that the original text presented appropriateness as an exception requirement for the exercise of the right of avoidance, it may be read as states requirements; focusing on the fact that it directed the assessment of various circumstances in light of the principle of good faith and equity, it may be read as totality of circumstances."}, {"axis": 6, "note": "In that the original text specified the criteria for assessing appropriateness and the burden of proof, it may be read as a new standard, but in that the relationship with existing precedent was not clarified, it may be read as cannot be confirmed."}], "batch": "a036", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2010Do7404", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both ask about the discretion to impose a fine concurrently and the scope of attribution to the defendant of profits arising from accounts in another person's name."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both read that the concurrent imposition of a fine lies within the court's discretion, that profits from the violation are the portion attributable to the actor, and that the profits from the accounts in this case are either not attributable to the defendant or the attributable portion cannot be identified."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "Whether the account received deposits of funds belonging only to the named holder, to whom the transaction profits are attributable, and whether the portion attributable to the defendant can be identified overlap."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "Both ask about the materials and method of calculation needed to identify profits attributable to the defendant in an account where funds are commingled."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a036", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2009Da17417", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask about the requirements for permitting the discontinuation of life-sustaining treatment in accordance with the patient's will."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings regard an irreversible stage of death and the exercise of the right to self-determination as requirements for discontinuation, and read that these were satisfied in this case."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "Although the emphasis differs as to the opinion of specialists and the provision of medical information and the like, more than half of the central elements overlap, including irreversibility, the imminent possibility of death, and the patient's usual expressions of will."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks about the composition, procedure, and effect of a committee outside the lawsuit, while the independent reading asks about the decision-making procedure and standards where materials for estimating the patient's will are lacking."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 7, "note": "In that the original text requires clear proof of an advance medical directive and objective materials for estimating the patient's will, the first reading may be read as imposing a burden of proof on the party asserting discontinuation, and with respect to the independent reading, attention may be drawn to the absence of an express statement of the responsible party."}], "batch": "a037", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2001Da55222", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask about set-off through an advance right to reimbursement and the possibility of avoiding a gratuitous act in the form of a joint and several guaranty extended by refinancing."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings deny set-off by an advance right to reimbursement and, in refinancing where the identity of the existing debt is preserved, assess the possibility of avoidance on the basis of the time of the original transaction."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The defensive nature of the claim for discharge, the absence of any substantive transfer of funds, the identity of the debt, and the time of the original transaction are common to both."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask about the boundary at which refinancing is evaluated as a new debt beyond a mere extension of the existing debt."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a037", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2006Do4876", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "The independent reading also encompasses the scope of employees, but the central question is the same: whether the property damage constituting the offense of breach of trust is recognized merely from exceeding the lending limit."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "The independent reading adds the scope of employees, but both read that exceeding the limit alone is insufficient and that damage is recognized only where there are problems of recovery arising from the ability to repay or the security."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The financial status, the borrowing and debt situation, the business outlook and the purpose of the loan, the value of the security, and the appointment of the chairperson of the board substantially overlap."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks about exceptional circumstances recognizing the offense of breach of trust apart from the risk of recovery, while the independent reading asks about the degree of insufficiency of repayment ability or security value that gives rise to a risk of recovery."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "The structure whereby the original text requires, in addition to exceeding the limit, problems in recovering the loan claim may be read as states requirements, and the portion assessing the recovery problem in light of various circumstances such as the financial status and the value of the security may be read as totality of circumstances."}], "batch": "a037", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2003Da65049", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask about the possibility of avoiding a payment in accordance with the tenor of the obligation made in a time of crisis, appropriateness and the burden of proof, and whether the period of a preceding insolvency procedure is included in the calculation."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings recognize the beneficiary's burden of proof as to the possibility of avoiding such payment and the exception of appropriateness, and read that the period of a preceding insolvency procedure is excluded in principle."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "Although the independent reading adds the bankrupt's subjective state, the property and business status, the source of funds, the relationship between the parties, and whether there was collusion or coercion are all common to both."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask about the content of the special circumstances exceptionally causing the period of a preceding insolvency procedure to be included in the calculation."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "The fact that the original text presented appropriateness as an exception requirement for avoidance may be read as states requirements, and the fact that it directed appropriateness to be assessed according to various circumstances such as the state of the property, the motive, and the source of funds may be read as totality of circumstances."}], "batch": "a037", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2002Do1855", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "The independent reading also encompasses the application of an aggravated fine without amendment of the indictment, but the central question of the number of offenses of repeated market price manipulation and the calculation of profits is the same."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings recognize a single comprehensive offense, the net trading profit after deducting transaction costs, and the clarity of the provisions, and the independent reading adds the conditions for imposing punishment without amendment of the indictment."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The continuing intent, the identity of the protected legal interest, the materials attached to the indictment, the disadvantage to the right of defense, and the transaction costs to be deducted are central elements common to both."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks about the scope of transactions to be included in the calculation of profits, while the independent reading asks about the circumstances in which the application of an aggravated fine without amendment of the indictment works a disadvantage to the right of defense."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a037", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2002Do1256", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask whether fictitious buy orders constitute market manipulation and the basis for calculating profit, and the independent reading also includes the number of offenses for repeated acts."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings share the gist that fictitious buy orders fall within market manipulation and that net trading profit is calculated by deducting transaction costs."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The nature of the securities and the total number issued, trading motives and types, and profit calculation reflecting costs overlap, and only the emphasis of the remaining factors differs."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks about offsetting gains and losses by item and deducting fluctuations attributable to market factors, while the independent reading asks about the scope of related transactions to be included in the profit calculation."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a038", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2009Da84608", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings center on the issue of recognizing causation between the discharge of pollutants and damage to fishing grounds, and the independent reading also includes expert appraisal and unlawfulness."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings take the view that causation has been prima facie proved, that counter-evidence sufficient to negate it is lacking, and that the limit of toleration was also exceeded."}, "factors": {"same": false, "note": "Arrival and occurrence of damage and publicness overlap, but the first reading centers on the discharge of harmful substances and counter-evidence for exemption, while the independent reading centers on the reliability of the appraisal and the degree of infringement."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks about the scope of liability where other pollution sources operated together, and the independent reading asks about the calculation of the compensation amount for each fisher."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a038", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2009Do14268", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask, in the third-party name registration of partnership land, who the victim of the breach of trust is and whether the entire purchase price may be recognized as the amount of loss."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings read that the victim is the partnership and that, since the exemption from the obligation to pay the balance must be reflected, the entire purchase price cannot be regarded as the amount of loss."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The partnership contract, the duty of care of a prudent manager, the decrease in the value of the entire property, and the exemption from the obligation to pay the balance are common decision factors."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask about the calculation of the specific amount of loss reflecting the exemption from the obligation to pay the balance, and the independent reading also includes the amount of the defendant's gain."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a038", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2004Da46519", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask about the subjective awareness required for the intentional revocation of preferential payment to a specific creditor."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings share the gist that awareness of evading creditor equality is necessary but an active intent to harm is not."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The central factors of the preferential act, awareness of evading creditor equality, the state of suspension of payments, and payment made to avoid the punishment of the representative director overlap."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks about the limits of inferring such awareness in ordinary payment absent special circumstances, and the independent reading asks how that awareness is to be determined in payment that also involves the need to continue the business."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a038", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "86Do1012", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask which law to apply to habitual fraud whose amount obtained after the enforcement of the special Act satisfies the constituent elements, so as to encompass acts before the enforcement as well."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings read that the supplementary provisions of the Criminal Act are applied and application by analogy is excluded, and that the remaining acts must be punished by encompassing them within the more serious crime of violating the special Act."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The transitional nature of the supplementary provisions of the Criminal Act, the fact that they are not provisions of the General Part, and the central factor of applying the crime carrying the heavier statutory penalty overlap."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask about the applicable law in cases where the amount obtained after enforcement alone is insufficient and the amounts before and after enforcement must be combined to satisfy the standard for aggravated punishment."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 6, "note": "The original text presents a conflict of legal interpretation between the majority and minority opinions but does not expressly state a change of precedent, so the first reading may read this as a change of precedent, while the independent reading may be seen as not having fixed the Relation to precedent."}], "batch": "a038", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2011Da80203", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "The independent reading also addresses the requirements for the use of inside information, but the central question of both readings is whether the period for exercising the claim can be complied with by an out-of-court claim."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings read that the period for exercise is an exclusion period rather than a time limit for filing an action, and that the exercise of rights out of court is also possible."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The central factors of short-term transactions, liability that does not inquire into whether inside information was actually used, and the nature of the period for exercising the claim overlap."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks about the time limit for filing an action after an out-of-court claim, and the independent reading asks about the content and specificity of the out-of-court claim necessary for compliance with the period."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a039", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2010Do2094", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask about the admissibility of evidence of the results of a blood sampling the suspect requested after an unlawful forcible transfer."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings read that, if the effect of the unlawful arrest and causation are not severed, there is no admissibility of evidence even with a request for blood sampling or consent to the evidence."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The content and circumstances of the violation of due process, the intervening circumstances that remove the unlawful elements, and the suspect's psychological state are common central factors."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask what specific intervening circumstances eliminate the effect of the forcible transfer and sever causation with the collection of evidence."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "Since the original text calls for a comprehensive assessment of the relevant circumstances while presenting the severance of causation as a condition for recognizing exceptional admissibility of evidence, the first reading may focus on the requirements and the independent reading on the method of comprehensive determination."}], "batch": "a039", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2001Da46761", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask whether a financial institution's exercise of the right to demand conclusion of the principal contract under a preliminary contract and of the right to select claims, and the notice of assignment, are subject to revocation of acts detrimental to creditors."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings read that, absent special circumstances such as collusion with the company that would warrant identifying the act with an act of the company, the exercise of such rights is not subject to revocation."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The nature of the transfer of security over collective claims in the form of a preliminary agreement, special circumstances such as collusion with the company, and the possibility of identifying the act with an act of the company overlap."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks about the validity of the selection of claims not stated in the statement, and the independent reading asks about the scope of special circumstances, other than collusion, that would warrant identifying the act with an act of the company."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "Since the original text presents both the exceptional requirements for revoking a third party's act and cases applying them to a financial institution's exercise of rights, the first reading may focus on the requirements and the independent reading on Application to the facts."}], "batch": "a039", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2009Do10541", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask about the method of calculating the amount of pecuniary gain from an act of breach of trust in providing joint collateral in breach of the agreement to establish a maximum amount mortgage."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings read that, taking the lost collateral value as the standard, apportionment according to the value ratio of the joint collateral and the deduction of the remaining collateral value are reflected."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The value ratio of the real property comprising the joint collateral, the remaining collateral value, and whether the amount of gain is 500 million won or more are common central factors."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks about the reference time point for the value ratio and for the conversion of the maximum amount of the foreign-currency claim, and the independent reading asks whether the actual amount of gain to be calculated through further examination is 500 million won or more."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a039", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2008Do7562", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask whether a decision of nonconformity with the Constitution regarding a penal provision whose amendment deadline has passed without remedial legislation leads to a loss of retroactive effect and a not guilty verdict."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings read that a decision of nonconformity with the Constitution is treated as a decision of unconstitutionality with respect to the penal provision, and that a not guilty verdict is required due to the loss of retroactive effect."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "Whether a decision of nonconformity with the Constitution constitutes a decision of unconstitutionality, the combination of the prohibition provision and the punishment provision, and the relationship between the deadline for remedial legislation and the loss of effect substantially overlap."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks about the retrial of convictions finalized during the period of provisional application, and the independent reading asks about the handling of the facts charged in the indictment where remedial legislation is enacted within the amendment deadline."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a039", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2002Da28746", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask whether awareness of a state of suspension of payments can be recognized in a person who knows of an order suspending check transactions."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings read that, absent special circumstances, an order suspending check transactions establishes a state of suspension of payments and awareness on the part of a person who knows of that order."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "Maturity of the obligation, lack of means, the order suspending check transactions, and awareness thereof are central factors that overlap."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask about the specific content of the special circumstances that would negate the state of suspension of payments or awareness thereof."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a040", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2010Do11394", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings center on at which stage, between the conclusion of a void contract and the subsequent issuance of new shares, the act of breach of trust is completed."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings read that, absent special circumstances, the mere conclusion of a void contract does not complete the offense, and that it is completed upon the final exercise of rights and the issuance of new shares."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "Pecuniary loss or the risk of actual harm, special circumstances giving rise to liability in tort, and the final exercise of rights and the issuance of new shares are central factors that overlap."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "The first reading concretizes liability based on appearance or employer's liability toward a bona fide counterparty, and the independent reading asks broadly about exceptional circumstances, but both ask about the scope of the exception where the risk of actual harm arises from the mere conclusion of the contract."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a040", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2003Do686", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "The independent reading also covers the scope of gains and recipients of information, but the central question of how to determine the falsity of the disclosed content overlaps."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings construed it as determining falsity on the basis of the disclosed content itself, and the independent reading also presents answers to other Holdings."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The falsity of the disclosed content, the actor's status, the company's management condition, stock price trends, and the circumstances before and after the act substantially overlap."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks whether an act utilizing a true disclosure falls under another type of unfair trading practice, and the independent reading asks the degree of specificity required for the feasibility of realizing prospective gains."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "Because the original text presents falsity of the disclosed content itself as the criterion while requiring a comprehensive assessment of all circumstances for transaction-relatedness and unjust gain, the classification may differ depending on the Holdings each reading noted."}], "batch": "a040", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2008Do6953", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask whether a secondary recipient of information who jointly participated in the primary recipient's immediate use of the information may be punished as an accomplice."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Distinguishing it from the mere use of re-transmitted information, both readings recognize punishment as an accomplice where the secondary recipient of information jointly participated in the trading of the primary recipient of information."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The central elements overlap: execution of the joint offense, provision of most of the purchase funds, and attribution of approximately 60% of the trading profits."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks whether conspiracy without provision of funds or distribution of profits is sufficient, and the independent reading asks the permissible temporal gap between receipt of the information and the trading."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 3, "note": "Since the order reverses and remands the portion of the judgment of the court below concerning the relevant defendant, if focus is placed on the outcome for that defendant it may be read as reversal and remand, and if focus is placed on the scope reversed within the judgment of the court below as a whole it may be read as partial reversal and remand."}], "batch": "a040", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2016Da239024", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "The independent reading also includes the claim for direct employment, but both readings ask the requirements for damages arising from failure to perform the duty of direct employment and from wage discrimination in a dispatch relationship."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings recognize the determination of a dispatch relationship based on substance, and liability for compensation for failure to perform the duty of direct employment and for wage discrimination without reasonable grounds, and the independent reading expressly states the claim for direct employment and the exception to compensation."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "Incorporation into the business, the absence of an independent business organization or facilities, involvement in wage determination, and the exceptional circumstances under which labor would not have been provided even if directly employed overlap."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks the specific circumstances for recognizing the exception that labor would not have been provided, and the independent reading asks on whom the burden of proof for those exceptional circumstances lies."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a040", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2005Da22701", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Although the independent reading encompasses the entire merger procedure, the central question of the permissibility and limitations of proxy exercise of voting rights is the same."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "The direction is the same: limitations on proxy exercise are determined in light of special circumstances, and a merger ratio under statutes and regulations is valid in the absence of special circumstances."}, "factors": {"same": false, "note": "Obstruction of the general meeting and manipulation of voting rights overlap, but the first emphasizes the reasonableness of the limitation and defects in the calculation materials, while the independent emphasizes whether it qualifies as a financial institution and the valuation and the method of public notice."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first asks about cases where the representative's intent is not reflected in an employee's proxy exercise, and the independent asks the degree to which the projected figures of the merger ratio are unrealistic."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 7, "note": "Because the original text provides special circumstances as an exception without specifying who bears the burden of proof, the first may be read as not addressed, and the independent may be read as placing the burden on the party invoking the exception."}], "batch": "a041", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2008Do763", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "The questions are the same: the requirements of the search and seizure procedure and the exceptional possibility of using illegally obtained evidence."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both read identically the procedural requirements for the warrant and the list of seized items, the exclusion in principle of illegally obtained evidence, and the prosecutor's burden of proof regarding exceptional circumstances."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The central elements overlap: individual presentation of the warrant, immediate delivery of the list of seized items, and whether due process was substantively infringed."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "Although the independent reading specified the types of procedural violations, the question of the specific content of the special circumstances warranting exceptional admissibility of evidence is the same."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 6, "note": "Because the original text specifically presented exceptional admissibility of evidence and the burden of proof, the first may be read as a new standard, but since the relation to precedent is not specified, the independent may reserve confirmation."}], "batch": "a041", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2003Da271", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "It asks both whether a preferential act may be avoided in a state that is not an excess of liabilities, and the subjective requirements for the avoidance of intentional acts."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "The gist is the same: a preferential act may be avoided upon the requirements of the likelihood of future insufficiency of the dividend fund and awareness of evading equality among creditors."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The substance of the transaction overlaps: insufficiency of the dividend fund, detriment to other creditors, awareness of evading equality among creditors, and extension of the term."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "The unresolved point is the same: the materials and the reference point for judging the likelihood of future insufficiency of the dividend fund."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 6, "note": "Because the original text concretized the required awareness on the basis of a balance with transaction security, the first may be read as a new standard, but since there is no introduction of or indication of a change in precedent, the independent may reserve confirmation."}], "batch": "a041", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2003Da55059", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Although the independent reading includes more related issues, the central question of the creation of a pledge over a claim for reimbursement of expenses and the possibility of the pledgee exercising the right of self-help sale is the same."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "It permits assignment and creation of a pledge in accordance with the independence of the claim for reimbursement of expenses, while denying direct self-help sale by the pledgee."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The propriety of the trust business, the independence of the claim, the trustee's power of management and disposition, and whether the pledgee's interests are infringed overlap."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "Although the emphasized situations and points in time differ, both ask the specific method by which a pledgee who cannot conduct direct self-help sale realizes its rights."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 6, "note": "The distinction in the original text between the claim for reimbursement of expenses and the right of self-help sale may be read by the first as a new standard and by the independent as the application of general legal principle; however, the relation to precedent is not specified in the original text provided."}], "batch": "a041", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "89Do582", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "The questions are the same: the number of offenses of fraud and the aggregation of amounts of gain, punishment for habitual fraud without amendment of the indictment, and application of the special provision on theft and fraud among relatives."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "It denies aggregation of the amounts of gain of independent offenses of fraud for each victim, requires amendment of the indictment for punishment for habitual fraud, and applies the special provision on theft and fraud among relatives even to aggravated punishment."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The central elements overlap: the independence of the protected legal interest, whether the indictment was amended, and the absence of a provision excluding the special provision on theft and fraud among relatives."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first asks the problem of distinguishing protected legal interests in collective harm resulting from a single act of deception, and the independent asks the scope of aggregating amounts of gain for habitual fraud lawfully prosecuted."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a041", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2017Da35588", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask the validity of a disadvantageous amendment of rules of employment without collective consent."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "The gist is the same: reasonableness under social norms alone is insufficient, the exception of abuse of the right to withhold consent is strictly judged, and an ex officio determination is possible."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The central elements overlap: the objective obviousness of the necessity of the change, the employer's sincere persuasion and efforts, and opposition without reasonable grounds."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks the required level of persuasion and efforts and the meaning of individual written consents, and the independent reading asks whether abuse of the right to withhold consent is recognized in this case."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a042", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2010Da84420", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask whether the reference point for short-term trading and the date the written agreement of intent was drawn up may be regarded as the date of conclusion of the sale contract."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "The gist is the same: the date of conclusion of the contract serves as the reference, and since the written agreement of intent in this case is a preliminary agreement, the date the sale contract was drawn up is the date of sale."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The wording, the motive and course of the transaction, the parties' purpose and true intent, and transaction practices are common."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks about a case where the principal terms were fixed and only performance was deferred, and the independent reading asks about a case where agreement on some conditions of performance was left open."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "Because the original text presents both the standard of the date of conclusion of the contract and a method of comprehensively interpreting the point of formation of the contract in light of various circumstances, the first reading may place weight on the former and the independent reading on the latter."}], "batch": "a042", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2004Da27686", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask whether the issuance of new shares following an overvalued contribution in kind is subject to the exercise of the right of avoidance."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "The gist is the same: in the absence of special circumstances, corporate assets increase rather than decrease, and thus it is not subject to the exercise of the right of avoidance."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The central elements substantially overlap: overvaluation of the subject of the contribution in kind, increase or decrease of corporate assets, and equality among creditors."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask the content of the special circumstances exceptionally permitting avoidance of a contribution in kind and the issuance of new shares."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 6, "note": "Because the original text presents a general determination regarding contributions in kind and the issuance of new shares without specifying the relation to prior precedent, the first reading may note the presentation of a new standard and the independent reading the uncertainty of the relation to precedent."}], "batch": "a042", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2006Do1813", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask the deceptiveness of the submission of financial statements that did not disclose the early application of the revised accounting standards, and the causation with the credit extension decision."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "The gist is the same: the requirements for recognizing an act of deception and causation, the determination of mistake based on the person with authority to decide the credit extension, and the prosecutor's burden of proof."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "Although the independent reading adds elements of reliability and collateral value, the central elements—whether it was disclosed, impossibility or difficulty of the credit extension, and the mistake of the decision-maker—overlap by more than half."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask how specific the footnote disclosing the fact of early application must be in order for the act of deception to be negated."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a042", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2012Do7455", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "The independent reading includes communications interception and warrant execution, but the central question remains the application of the National Security Act to meetings during an approved visit to North Korea."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "The independent reading adds the omission of prior notice of warrant execution, but the substance concerning punishment of meetings, legitimate travel, packet interception, and the extension of the prior measure remains the same."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The circumstances of travel to and from North Korea, the actual conduct of trade and cooperation projects, and the conduct before and after the travel overlap by more than half, and the central point of determining the legitimacy of the travel is likewise the same."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks about an exception under which even packet interception satisfying the statutory requirements is not permitted, while the independent reading asks about the Procedure for the selection and destruction of collected irrelevant communications and third-party communications."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a042", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2003Do7112", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Although the independent reading covers manipulation of market prices and conspiracy as well, the central questions of specification of the facts constituting the offense charged and the possibility of applying an aggravated fine are the same."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings concluded that the facts constituting the offense charged must be specifically specified, and that pronouncing the sentence of the proviso without stating the amount of profit and the basis for its calculation would violate the principle prohibiting adjudication beyond the charges (ne eat iudex ultra petita)."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "More than half of the central elements overlap, including awareness of the possibility, the nature of the securities and the total number issued, trading motives and types, and the omission of materials for calculating the amount of profit."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks to what degree statements relating to the amount of profit can be regarded as a prosecution applying the proviso, while the independent reading asks how specific the timing and method of using information must be for specification of the facts constituting the offense charged."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 3, "note": "Even though the disposition states that it reverses the entirety of the portions concerning the defendants, the first reading may place focus on the reversal of the entirety of that portion, while the independent reading may focus on the scope as \"part of the judgment of the court below.\""}], "batch": "a043", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2005Da59307", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask about the termination of the lawsuit relating to the right of avoidance following the closing of the reorganization Procedure and the possibility of succession."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings concluded that, upon the closing of the reorganization Procedure, the relevant right was extinguished, the lawsuit was terminated, and succession was not permitted."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings commonly cite the character of the right as one that only the trustee may exercise and the termination of the Procedure prior to the recovery of assets, and connect the lack of qualification and the extinguishment of the right to the unavailability of succession."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "The independent reading narrows its focus to the other party's right, but both readings ask about the post-termination legal relationship surrounding assets already recovered before the termination."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "While the original text sets out the general legal principle of the extinguishment of the right and the unavailability of succession, it also declares the actual termination of the lawsuit and the dismissal of the application for succession, so that the classification may vary depending on whether the focus is placed on the result of application or on the general requirements."}], "batch": "a043", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2005Do7911", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Although the first reading also specifies methods for valuing unlisted shares, the central question of the two readings is whether the sale of the company's shares at an undervalue or in a biased manner constitutes breach of trust."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings were understood to have found breach of trust and loss to the company in the sale at an undervalue of the shares of the golf course subsidiary and in the sale of treasury stock for the major shareholder's personal benefit."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "Examples of ordinary transactions, the circumstances of the corporation (juristic person) and the parties at the time of the transaction, and the absence of an appropriate sale Procedure overlap, and business value and sale terms are considered together."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks to what extent the management control premium is reflected in calculating the amount of loss on the treasury stock, while the independent reading asks how the relative weight among the methods for valuing unlisted shares is to be determined."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a043", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2005Da76500", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "The issue in both readings asks whether a debt omitted because its existence was unknown through negligence constitutes a non-dischargeable debt omitted in bad faith."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings construed it as requiring that, before the discharge order, the existence of the debt be known and the debt nevertheless be omitted, with cases of not knowing due to negligence excluded."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The point in time of being before the discharge order, awareness of the existence of the debt, omission from the schedule, and the immateriality of the presence or absence of negligence substantially overlap."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask what Evidence is required to recognize awareness of the existence of the debt, and the first reading adds the burden of proof as well."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a043", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2009Da76362", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask whether, and upon what requirements, the pledgee's direct acquisition of the pledged property and the application of claims are subject to avoidance."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings construed that direct exercise may also be avoided in the same manner as an act of execution, and that if the harmfulness of the acquisition of a key asset is recognized, the effect of set-off is likewise not maintained."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The following elements overlap: the purpose of achieving satisfaction of the claim, the absence of a right of separate satisfaction, the effect on the company's earning capacity, and the factor that the asset is a key asset necessary for the business."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask what the content of the special circumstances would be under which, even upon acquisition of a key asset, rehabilitation claimants would not be harmed."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 6, "note": "While the original text explains the general legal principle of avoidance, it applies the legal principle governing acts of execution by analogy to the pledgee's direct exercise; accordingly, if attention is paid to the presentation of the scope of such analogy, it may be read as a new standard, whereas if attention is paid to the continuity of the general legal principle, it may be read as following existing precedent."}], "batch": "a043", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2007Do2202", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask whether reasonable source attribution is possible even if the author's real name or pen name is omitted."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings read that specification of the name is not an obligation without exception, and that, taking the circumstances of use into overall account, a violation of the obligation in this Case is difficult to find."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "Whether the exclusion of the likelihood of confusion is stated differs, but the circumstances of use, the possibility of exaggeration in promotional materials, and the concern of harm to the author's rights and interests overlap."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks about quotations in textbooks or academic works rather than promotional materials, and the independent reading asks about unspecified source attribution in cases where there is no concern of harm to the author's rights and interests."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 6, "note": "In that the original text specified the exceptions to specification of the name and the standards for comprehensive judgment, it may be read as one that sets a new standard, but since its relationship to existing precedent is not clarified, it may also be read as 'cannot be confirmed'."}], "batch": "a044", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2011Do15857", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask whether set-off and provision of security that are legally void give rise to harm or risk constituting the offense of breach of trust from an economic perspective."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings recognize the risk of actual harm in set-off against a fictitious claim, while denying it in the establishment of a maximum amount mortgage where the counterparty's knowledge, the absence of a debt obligation, and cancellation are present."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "Although the emphasis on general legal principles and concrete facts differs, the central elements overlap: nullity arising from abuse of representative authority, absence of an obligation to pay damages, and cancellation of the maximum amount mortgage."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask how the risk of actual harm is to be assessed where the maximum amount mortgage is not canceled, and the first reading also includes the case in which the counterparty is unaware of the abuse of representative authority and the point in time at which the assessment is made."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a044", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2005Da72348", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask on what grounds an act constituting a requirement for effectiveness (of the avoidance) may be avoided, and whether fleeing overseas in a state of excess of liabilities over assets constitutes a suspension of payment."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings read that only avoidance under Article 66 is possible, and that the flight overseas in this Case constitutes a suspension of payment as an implied refusal of payment."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "Although the purpose of the avoidance provisions and the emphasis on the company's inability to conduct business differ, the central elements — a general and continuing inability to make payment, external manifestation, and excess of liabilities over assets — overlap."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks what acts, other than the flight overseas, may be recognized as constituting a suspension of payment, and the independent reading asks about cases where partial payment continued after the flight overseas."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a044", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2012Da211", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask whether a gratuitous transfer of one's only asset for the purpose of evading execution constitutes a fraudulent act and whether collected proceeds paid to the debtor are to be deducted."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings recognized the gratuitous transfer as a fraudulent act and read that the collected proceeds paid to the debtor are not deducted from the scope of return."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The last item differs from the conclusion of non-deduction and from the fact of payment of the collected proceeds, but the central elements of the purpose of evading execution, the de facto only asset, and the gratuitous transfer overlap."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks about the transferee's separate recovery or settlement method, while the independent reading asks about the permissibility of deduction where the collected proceeds were returned directly to the bankruptcy estate."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "In that the original text contains a conclusion regarding a specific gratuitous transfer and the payment of the collected proceeds, it may be read as Application to the facts; in that it generalized the purpose of evading execution, the only asset, and the gratuitous transfer, it may be read as states requirements."}], "batch": "a044", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2008Do6219", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask the meaning of information that has a significant impact on investment judgment and the time at which it is generated."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings read that, by comparing materiality and the probability of occurrence, information is generated even before completion if it becomes sufficiently concrete to have significant value for a trading decision."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The first reading emphasizes gradual concretization and incomplete status as well, but the central elements overlap: the materiality of the information, the probability of occurrence, and the significant value in a trading decision."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks the degree of circumstantial facts sufficient to acknowledge actual acquisition and use of the information, and the independent reading asks the standard for the generation of information where materiality is high and the probability of occurrence is low."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a044", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2009Du7967", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both ask whether a refusal disposition based on additional criteria not found in the guidelines violates self-binding or the principle of protection of trust."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both read that administrative practice and trust worthy of protection are not recognized and that there are special circumstances in the public interest, so the refusal disposition is not unlawful."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The central elements—formation of administrative practice, trust worthy of protection, superior public interest, and special circumstances—overlap."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "Both ask how much repeated implementation is required for administrative practice that gives rise to self-binding to be established."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a045", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "91Do1911", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both ask the standard for aggregating the amount of gain in joint fraud, and the independent reading also asks the applicable law before and after the amendment."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both read that the amounts of gain of all accomplices are aggregated and that, since there is no difference in the severity of the sentence at a gain of KRW 500 million, the law prior to the amendment is applied."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The central elements—aggregation of the amount of gain arising from joint offense and the absence of any difference in the severity of punishment before and after the amendment—overlap."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "Both ask the scope of aggregation where the accomplice relationship extends only to part of the offense, while the independent reading specifies it in terms of mid-course participation or withdrawal."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a045", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2012Da1146", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both ask the unfairness of the KIKO contract, whether it falls under standard terms and conditions, and the scope of the bank's obligations, and the independent reading also includes comparative negligence."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "The gist is the same in denying the unfairness of the contract and the standard-terms nature of the structure itself, and in denying the duty of disclosure in principle while recognizing suitability and the duty of explanation; the independent reading adds specific violations and comparative negligence."}, "factors": {"same": false, "note": "The primary reading focuses on the customer's business circumstances and transaction risks, whereas the independent reading includes parity of expected profits, individual negotiation, and retention of unlawful gains, so the composition of the elements and the scope of focus differ."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "Both ask the specific criteria for determining whether fees are markedly higher than market practices."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a045", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2010Do13801", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both ask the specification of the facts charged in the indictment by victim for aggravated punishment of embezzlement acts, and the independent reading also includes joint principal offenders of breach of trust and res judicata."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both read that the victim and the amount of damage must be specified and that active participation by the beneficiary of the breach of trust is required, and the independent reading adds res judicata arising from imaginary concurrence."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The requirements for establishing a single comprehensive offense, distinction and specification by victim, and active participation in an act of breach of trust substantially overlap, and the independent reading adds imaginary concurrence."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The primary reading asks about exceptions where specification by victim is not required, while the independent reading asks about the scope of acts of involvement constituting active participation as a joint principal offender of breach of trust."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a045", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2013Do11233", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both ask the requirements for admissibility of evidence where evidence seized irrespective of the suspected facts in the warrant is received again after being returned."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both recognize the exclusion of evidence in principle and the possibility that re-submission severs causation, but read that the prosecutor must prove voluntariness beyond reasonable doubt."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "Relevance to the suspected facts in the warrant, causation with the initial illegality, the superior position of the investigating authority, and the voluntariness of submission overlap."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "Both ask the specific circumstances for recognizing voluntariness, but the primary reading includes as a separate key question whether the same standard of proof applies to submission to an administrative agency."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 6, "note": "As the original text specifies the prosecutor's burden of proof of voluntariness and the degree of proof, the primary reading may be read as sets a new standard, but since the relationship with existing precedents is not presented, the independent reading may be read as cannot be confirmed."}], "batch": "a045", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "89Do641", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask the establishment of the offense of breach of trust in connection with a site mortgage loan after sale, and the effect of an error in calculating the amount of damage for purposes of aggravated punishment."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings read in the same sense the establishment of the offense of breach of trust, damage equivalent to the amount of the secured debt, and the negation of the effect of a calculation error that meets the requirements of aggravated punishment."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The central elements—the duty to register the transfer of ownership, the risk of actual loss, and the amount equivalent to the secured debt—overlap by more than half."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The primary reading asks the effect of the parties' agreement on the mortgage loan, while the independent reading asks the scope of calculating the amount of damage for secured debt exceeding the collateral value."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a046", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2010Da49083", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask the meaning of the debtor's bad faith and the criteria for determining it in deciding the non-dischargeability of omitted claims."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings read that where the debt was omitted negligently despite knowledge of the debt, it constitutes a non-dischargeable claim, and bad faith is determined by comprehensively considering various circumstances."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The list of claims and their relatedness, the relationship between the parties, the explanation of the circumstances of omission, and whether it accords with objective materials are common."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The primary reading raises recognition of the debt immediately before the discharge order, while the independent reading raises the erroneous belief that the debt had been extinguished."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a046", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2005Do5567", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "The independent reading focuses on the receipt of money and valuables in return for solicitation, but the central question of the relationship between the establishment of the offense of violating the former Attorney-at-Law Act and the offense of delivering bribes overlaps."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings read that the offense of violating the former Attorney-at-Law Act is established by the receipt of money and valuables in the name of solicitation for one's own benefit, while the offense of delivering bribes is not established."}, "factors": {"same": false, "note": "The value of the subject of unlawful gain and the purpose of one's own benefit overlap, but the primary reading emphasizes whether the benefit was realized and the benefit from the use of collateral, while the independent reading emphasizes the instrumentality of the appearance of being an employee and the nonexistence of the position, so the common elements do not reach half."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The primary reading asks the exception to the calculation of the amount of gain different from the guarantee limit, while the independent reading asks the relationship between the establishment of the offenses where one's own remuneration and the sum delivered to a public official are mixed."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a046", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2002Mu22", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask whether a re-disposition that is void by operation of law contrary to the binding force of a judgment of revocation permits an application for indirect compulsory execution."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings treat a re-disposition that is void by operation of law as equivalent to the absence of a re-disposition and recognize the requirements for indirect compulsory execution for a new refusal disposition that violates the transitional provision."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "Absence of a re-disposition, nullity by operation of law due to violation of binding force, and the transitional provision stipulating the application of the prior provision are common."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The primary reading asks whether indirect compulsory execution is possible for a re-disposition that has only other illegality without violation of binding force, while the independent reading asks whether a refusal disposition under an amended statute without a transitional provision violates binding force."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a046", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2014Do6910", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask whether a recommendation that does not disclose a prior purchase and the possibility of selling after the recommendation constitutes the use of improper means and deception."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings read that, by omitting the interest and thereby creating the impression of an objective recommendation to induce trading, it falls under both types."}, "factors": {"same": false, "note": "The primary reading emphasizes the prior purchase, the possibility of sale, and the failure to indicate the interest, while the independent reading emphasizes market trust, incentives to produce information, and the motive for the recommendation, so the common elements do not reach half."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask the specificity and scope of the indication of interest sufficient to prevent misunderstanding by investors."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 6, "note": "As the original text argues the harms of scalping and the need to indicate interests, it may be read as sets a new standard, but since it does not specify the relationship with existing precedents, it may also be read as cannot be confirmed."}], "batch": "a046", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2014Do8719", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask whether a warrant is required for the opening of goods and the acquisition of possession under the special act."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings read that the measure in question constitutes seizure or search in a criminal investigation, so an ex ante or ex post warrant is required."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The exception to the warrant requirement, the purpose of customs clearance, whether there is compulsory acquisition of possession, and the opening and acquisition of possession of specific goods match."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "The settings differ, with independent inspection and mixed purposes, but both ask the specific criteria for distinguishing customs inspection from criminal investigation."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 6, "note": "As the original text presents both the general warrant requirement principle and the specific classification of measures under the special act, the former may focus on the novelty of the specific classification, and the latter may focus on the application of the general principle."}], "batch": "a047", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2006Da50444", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask the criteria for limiting the right of avoidance according to the gratuitous nature and adequacy of guarantees by affiliated companies."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings read that where there is no direct and real economic benefit, gratuitousness is recognized, and adequacy is determined by comprehensively considering objective elements."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "Economic benefit, the state of property and business, socioeconomic necessity, and the content and amount of the act substantially coincide."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The primary reading asks the degree of consideration that would negate gratuitousness, while the independent reading asks the degree of socioeconomic necessity that would limit the right of avoidance."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a047", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2009Da40547", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings make the determination regarding market manipulation under a profit guarantee agreement between private parties, and the application of the principle of prohibition of profit guarantees, the central question."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings hold that an intent to manipulate the market cannot be conclusively established and that the principle of prohibition of profit guarantees cannot be applied by analogy directly to an agreement between private parties."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "Price and trading volume, economic rationality and fairness, market participation rate, and the fact that the agreement is between private parties are central elements that overlap."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks about invalidity based on the expression of a market manipulation purpose or the counterparty's recognition, while the independent reading asks about the limits of denial of effect on grounds other than market manipulation."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "The original text contains both a general standard for comprehending circumstantial facts and its application to specific transactions; the former may focus on the determination of the case, and the latter on the structure of the general standard."}], "batch": "a047", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2002Do7262", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "The independent reading covers debt refinancing and voluntary surrender and the like broadly, but the central questions of accounting fraud, offense of fraud, flight of property abroad, and additional collection (confiscation of criminal proceeds) are the same."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "The independent reading adds other Holdings of the court, but the gist is the same: establishment of the offense of fraud, punitive additional collection of the full amount, and denial of intent in the case of remittances made for the purpose of immediate repatriation."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The substance of the debt refinancing, investors who trusted the trustee company, and the purpose of immediate repatriation overlap, and the factors relating to voluntary surrender are also addressed in common."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask where to draw the boundary of the denial of intent according to the timing of re-entry of the funds and the purpose of immediate repatriation, and the independent reading extends this to partial use overseas."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a047", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2003Do6759", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask whether the application to off-exchange direct face-to-face transactions and whether such results as an actual misunderstanding are required for the establishment of a crime."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings take the position that the provision applies also to off-exchange transactions and that, as this is a purpose offense, an actual misunderstanding and causation are not required."}, "factors": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading emphasizes the application to off-exchange transactions, the amendment from a result crime to a purpose offense, and the unneedfulness of an actual result, while the independent reading places emphasis on the scope of securities, the content of the document, and the purpose of obtaining profit."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask the criteria for determining the materiality of statements in the document, with the first reading adding the circumstances bearing on recognition of the purpose, and the independent reading adding the necessity of the omitted fact."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a047", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "86Nu484", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask whether an instruction of the Commissioner of the National Tax Service constitutes the statutory basis for taxation at the actual transaction value."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings understand that an administrative rule within the limits of delegation, combined with the delegating statute, forms the basis for taxation."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The delegation of the authority to specify concretion, the absence of designation of procedure or method, and compliance with the limits of delegation as the central element overlap."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask for the specific criteria for determining whether a departure from the limits of delegation of a supplementary provision has occurred."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 6, "note": "Insofar as the original text states a general legal principle concerning the external effect of administrative rules, it may be read as setting forth a new standard; however, because it does not clarify the relationship with existing precedent, it may also be read as cannot be confirmed."}], "batch": "a048", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2009Do8265", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask whether embezzlement of appearance fees under separate agreements may be bound together as a single comprehensive offense and punished more severely on the basis of the aggregate amount."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings are understood as making it difficult to recognize a single comprehensive offense and aggravated punishment based on the aggregate amount unless there is a special circumstance unifying the entrustment relationships."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The protected legal interest and the unity of intent, the identity of the form of the acts, and the comprehensive legal relationship binding the entrustment relationships are common."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask the conditions for recognizing a comprehensive legal relationship that unifies the entrustment relationships of separate tasks."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "Attention to the part of the original text enumerating the general requirements of a single comprehensive offense reads as states requirements, while attention to the part applying them to the entrustment relationships of individual tasks may be read as Application to the facts."}], "batch": "a048", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "86DaKa1858", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask about the liability of and the scope of defenses available to a guarantor on a bill, depending on whether presentment for payment was made and whether the underlying obligation subsists."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings recognize a claim without presentment for payment and the limitation of personal defenses, while reading the defense of abuse of rights, arising from a final determination of the non-existence of the underlying obligation, as an exception."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The final determination of the non-existence of the underlying obligation, the requirements of the proviso to Article 17 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act, and the counterparty's awareness of the representative director's true intention overlap, and the central element of the defense of abuse of rights is likewise the same."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask about the special circumstances that would exclude the defense of abuse of rights, and the first reading also asks about the point in time of the final determination of the non-existence of the underlying obligation."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a048", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2010Do9927", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask whether an accomplice who withdrew after partially carrying out a single comprehensive offense remains liable for the subsequent market price manipulation as well."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings treat the repeated market price manipulation as a single comprehensive offense and recognize the liability of the withdrawing party, who did not stop the acts of the other accomplice, for the subsequent offenses."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The central elements overlap: a continuing single offense, identity of the protected legal interest, and the fact of not having stopped the acts of the other accomplice."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask what specific measures are necessary to be freed from liability for offenses committed after withdrawal."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "If attention is paid to the specific determination in the original text concerning the withdrawal after dismissal, it may be read as Application to the facts; if attention is paid to the conditions for determining liability—the partial commission and whether the subsequent offenses were stopped—it may be read as states requirements."}], "batch": "a048", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2013Da2740", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings center on price manipulation and liability for damages by traders in linked products, but the first reading focuses on the specific transaction of delta hedging."}, "answer": {"same": false, "note": "The answer regarding the scope of actors is the same, but the first reading addresses the point that liability cannot be avoided on the sole ground of risk-hedging purposes, while the independent reading answers with the totality of circumstances assessment of price-fixing purposes and the scope of compensation based on adequate causation."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The nature and total number of securities, price and trading volume, economic rationality and fairness, and market participation rate and closing price management substantially overlap."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask for the boundary distinguishing legitimate risk-hedging transactions from unlawful price fixing, and the independent reading focuses on the weight of conflicting circumstances."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "If attention is paid to the point that the original text states requirements on the meaning of price fixing and decision factors, it can be read as states requirements; if attention is paid to the point that it directs multiple circumstantial facts to be considered in their totality, it can be read as totality of circumstances."}], "batch": "a048", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2006Da80636", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask whether, where a new crisis arose and bankruptcy followed after a composition approval was finalized, the prior suspension of payments may be taken as the standard for denial."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings read the matter as follows: the prior crisis state was resolved for the time being, and only a suspension of payments that bears adequate causation (proximate cause) to the subsequent bankruptcy becomes the standard."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The meaning of the suspension of payments and the course of the preceding composition proceeding overlap, and the first reading places weight on credit and resolution of the crisis, while the independent reading places greater weight on repayment, the new crisis, and adequate causation (proximate cause)."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask about the exception in which adequate causation (proximate cause) between the prior suspension of payments and the subsequent bankruptcy is recognized, with the first reading citing a short repayment period or de minimis repayment as specific circumstances."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 6, "note": "The source text expressly sets out a limitation based on adequate causation (proximate cause) but does not clarify its relationship with precedents, so the first reading may place weight on the presentation of the standard, and the independent reading on the application of the existing legal principle."}], "batch": "a049", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2014Do6992", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask whether an embezzlement charge against the title trustor arising from an arbitrary (unauthorized) disposal may be established in a title trust of the intermediate-omission registration type."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings hold that no embezzlement is established because there is no ownership and no fiduciary relationship to be protected, with only Reading 1 adding the overruling of prior precedent."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The seller's retention of ownership, the title trustor's absence of ownership, and the illegality of the title trust relationship are the common central elements."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "Reading 1 asks about application to other types of title trust or to valid exception cases, while the independent reading asks about the possibility of establishing embezzlement against the seller."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a049", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2008Da48117", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask whether the avoidance period is extended where only the principal debtor is a specially related person, and the independent reading also asks about the gratuitous nature of the guarantee."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings read that in the absence of direct and concrete consideration the gratuitous nature cannot be denied, and that the extension of the period is based on the creditor's status as a specially related person."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The economic meaning of the right to reimbursement, direct and concrete consideration, and the specially related status of the creditor as the direct counterparty are common to both."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks what effect the information access of, or the timing of the application by, a creditor who is not a specially related person has on the extension of the period, and the independent reading asks under what conditions the right to reimbursement may be recognized as consideration for the guarantee."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 6, "note": "Because the original text specifies the scope of the gratuitous nature and of specially related persons while leaving unclear its relationship to prior precedents, the first reading may focus on the presentation of specific criteria, and the independent reading on the application of the existing legal principle."}], "batch": "a049", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2001Do3567", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask as to the content of the intent to cause another person's judgment to err, the degree of awareness of the possibility, and the method of judgment."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings are understood to hold that an awareness of the possibility coexisting with another purpose suffices, and that the purpose may be judged by synthesizing circumstantial facts."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The motive and manner of the transaction and its economic rationality and fairness are the common central elements, while the first reading adds unnecessary requirements and the independent reading further enumerates additional circumstantial facts."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask as to the boundary of the sufficiency of circumstantial facts for recognizing an awareness of the possibility, but the first reading narrows it to circumstances involving another motive and little effect on the transaction."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "Since the original text presents together the subjective requirement of an awareness of the possibility and the comprehensive judgment of circumstantial facts, the first reading may focus on the content of the requirement and the independent reading on the method of its recognition."}], "batch": "a049", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2003Da53497", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask as to the starting point of the 15-day period, the applicable provision for the act of fulfilling the opposability requirement, and whether the acts of a creditor or a third party may be avoided."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings are understood to hold that the period runs from the date the effect arises, that only Article 80 applies, and that a third party's act may be avoided only where there are special circumstances warranting its identification with the act of the company."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The date on which the effect of the causative act arises and special circumstances warranting identification with the act of the company, such as collusion, are the common central elements."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks as to the specific facts identifying the exercise of the right to complete a preliminary agreement with the act of the company through collusion, while the independent reading asks as to the scope of special circumstances other than collusion."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a049", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2006Du330", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask as to the residents' standing as plaintiffs and the requirements for invalidity of the disposition in the Saemangeum Project and for revocation on the ground of a change of circumstances."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings are understood to distinguish the standing requirements for residents inside and outside the region and to hold that the requirements for invalidity or revocation are not satisfied."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The central elements—the limit of endurance of environmental harm, the imbalance between benefit and cost, and the violation of the public interest in maintaining the disposition—overlap by more than half."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks as to the manner of handling the lack of proof of uncertain environmental risks, while the independent reading asks as to the degree to which future environmental changes must reach in order to constitute grounds for discontinuing the project."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a050", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2016Ma5394", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask how the reference point in time for the share purchase price is to be determined where the stock price was affected prior to the public announcement of the merger."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings are understood to hold that the reference point in time may be determined reasonably and that the determination choosing the day preceding the listing date of the counterparty company was affirmed."}, "factors": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading emphasizes the advance anticipation of the merger, the distortion of the stock price, and the affiliated-company relationship, while the independent reading emphasizes evaluation factors other than the market price and the characteristics of the company, so that the substantive overlap falls short of half."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks to what extent an anticipated merger between independent companies must become concrete, while the independent reading asks how the reference date is to be determined where the anticipation is formed gradually."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a050", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2011Do769", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask as to the establishment of the offense of fraud with respect to unpaid interest and whether fraud against married victims constitutes a single comprehensive offense."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings are understood to hold that a separate act of disposition concerning the interest is required and that a single comprehensive offense cannot be recognized merely on account of the parties being a married couple."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The intention to dispose, the separate act of disposition concerning the interest, the identity of the protected legal interest, and the spousal relationship are overlapping elements."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks as to a general relationship or a form of property management that would support the identity of the protected legal interest, while the independent reading asks whether the act of disposition in this case and the identity of the legal interest will be confirmed after remand."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a050", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2001Do606", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "The independent reading adds the issue of recognizing conspiracy, but the central questions of assessing the inducement purpose and of the corporate fine and calculation of profits are the same."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings are understood to recognize the inducement purpose through an awareness of the possibility and circumstantial facts, and to include in the corporation's profits the net trading gains and the valuation gains on shares held at the time of closing."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The central elements—the economic rationality and fairness of the transaction, the profits gained or losses avoided by the corporation, and the valuation gains on shares held at the time of closing—overlap by more than half."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks as to proof of the causation between the valuation gains on the relevant assets and the rise in the stock price, while the independent reading asks as to the specific price to be applied to the valuation gains on shares held."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 7, "note": "Since the original text explains strict proof of conspiracy and proof by circumstantial facts, the first reading may infer the burden of proof on the prosecution, while the independent reading may note the absence of any express identification of the party bearing the burden."}], "batch": "a050", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2012Da87751", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask as to the continuation and succession of the avoidance action upon a declaration of bankruptcy ex officio and as to the scope of contracts subject to termination by agreement."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings recognize the succession and continuation of the avoidance action, confine termination by agreement to continuing obligatory relationships, and the first reading further specifies that termination is unavailable after the relationship has been extinguished."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The central elements—implementation of the bankruptcy proceedings ex officio, the contractual requirements for termination, and a contract giving rise to a continuing obligatory relationship—overlap by more than half."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks as to the availability of exercising a bankruptcy termination clause, while the independent reading asks whether the avoidance action may be succeeded to in a declaration of bankruptcy made upon a separate application."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a050", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2004Da30040", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "The independent reading further includes the calculation method and constitutionality, but the central question of whether simultaneous transactions are subject to return is the same."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Quantities matching in both point in time and price are excluded from the subject of return, and the direction of judgment on the calculation method and constitutionality is also the same."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The purpose of the system, the identity of the point in time of the order, and the match of price and quantity overlap, while the independent reading adds the elements of the effective date and the scope of delegated legislation."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask as to the range of time differences recognized as the same point in time, and the first reading also asks whether exclusion applies depending on the availability of the use of inside information."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "Since the original text presents the general requirements of simultaneity and price identity while applying them to specific transactions, the first reading may focus on the requirements and the independent reading on their application."}, {"axis": 6, "note": "The original text contains both the derivation of the criteria for excluding transactions and a general explanation of the legal principle on delegated legislation, so the classification may vary according to the emphasis, but the Relation to precedent is not specified."}], "batch": "a051", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2003Mo402", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "The right to request the participation of counsel, a quasi-appeal against a refusal disposition, and the requirements for restricting participation are all treated as the same question."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "The right to request participation and the quasi-appeal are recognized, and the purport is the same: participation may be restricted where there are special circumstances that are objectively apparent."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The constitutional guarantee of assistance by counsel, harmony with other fundamental rights, and the concern over obstruction of interrogation or disclosure of secrets substantially overlap."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks as to the materials supporting the grounds for restriction and the degree of proof, while the independent reading asks as to the specific conduct warranting recognition of a concern over obstruction of interrogation."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 6, "note": "The derivation of the right to participate and the requirements for restriction by analogous application, without an express provision, may be read as a new criterion, but since the original text does not specify the relation to precedent, it may also be read as cannot be confirmed."}], "batch": "a051", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2009Mo1190", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings commonly ask as to the requirements for the external removal of a storage medium and for the lawfulness of searching and copying after removal."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Requirements for exceptional removal, relevance to the suspicion, and assurance of the right to participate are demanded, and the enforcement in this case is read as not being unlawful."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The central elements—the difficulty of on-site enforcement, the limitation to the parts relevant to the suspicion, and the continuing assurance of the right to participate—overlap."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask whether bulk copying based on a certain point in time is permitted even where a party expressly objects."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 6, "note": "The fact that the original text systematically presents the principles, exceptions, and protective measures of search and seizure of electronic information may be read as a new criterion, but since the Relation to precedent is not specified, it may also be read as cannot be confirmed."}], "batch": "a051", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2010Da63836", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings commonly ask whether the effect of an existing transfer security extends to claims arising after the commencement of rehabilitation proceedings."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "The purport is the same: the effect of the security interest does not extend to claims arising after commencement, and the residual loan claim in this case constitutes a rehabilitation claim."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The administrator's (debtor-in-possession's) exclusive authority and status as a public trustee, the non-repayment of the loan, and the absence of the collateral object at the time of commencement are all identical."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings commonly ask as to the treatment of a claim whose cause of action was formed before commencement and became concrete after commencement, but the first reading additionally includes the arrival of the due date for repayment."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a051", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2017Da205073", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Whether the jurisdiction for the exercise of the right of avoidance after the case is taken over on appeal and the question of how to calculate the estate subject to liability with respect to disposed property on which security has been set are the same question."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "The gist is the same: retention of the appellate court's adjudicatory authority, the proportional apportionment of the joint mortgage debt, and the deduction of the full amount of the tenant's security deposit to which a right to preferential payment attaches."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The central elements overlap: procedural convenience arising from the progress of the lawsuit, the value-proportional apportionment of the joint mortgage debt, and the deduction of the full tenant's security deposit."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "They commonly ask what special circumstances would justify excluding the proportional apportionment of the joint mortgage debt."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 6, "note": "Because the original text derives in detail the reasons for retaining appellate jurisdiction while also explaining the general legal principle governing the calculation of the estate subject to liability, it may be read as either sets a new standard or follows existing precedent depending on which part is emphasized; however, the relation to precedent is not stated."}], "batch": "a051", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2004Da32503", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask whether the provision of security for the extension of the maturity of promissory notes or for the avoidance of dishonor falls within the company's duties."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings take the view that a specific duty for which a claim for performance exists is required, and that the provision of security in this case does not correspond to such a duty."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The central elements overlap: specific duty, claim for performance, and maturity extension or avoidance of dishonor, while only the first reading adds the element of the creditor's awareness."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask to what extent a prior agreement to provide security may be recognized as a specific duty, with the first reading focusing on the uncertainty as to timing and method."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a052", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2013Do7101", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask about the admissibility of evidence of audio files relating to other persons' allegations that were seized without a separate warrant."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings take the view that, because the files lack relevance to the case and the violation of the warrant requirement is grave, their admissibility of evidence cannot be recognized even exceptionally."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The irrelevance of the suspect and the allegations, the absence of a separate warrant, and the violation of the warrant requirement and its gravity all overlap."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask about the permissible scope of seizure where a connection exists between the suspect named in the warrant and the new allegation, and the first reading also includes the case where a separate warrant is obtained immediately."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a052", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2003Da60396", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask whether a major shareholder's open-market sale after abandoning a hostile corporate takeover falls within an interpretive exception to the disgorgement of short-swing trading profits."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings take the view that an exception is permitted for transactions in which there is no possibility whatsoever of the use of inside information, but that liability to disgorge is recognized with respect to the sale in this case."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The purpose of the system and the nature of the grounds for exception, the complete exclusion of the possibility of using inside information, and the open-market disposal after abandonment of the takeover substantially overlap, while the independent reading also expressly refers to the guarantee of property rights."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask for the specific conditions under which it may be found that there was no possibility whatsoever of using inside information, with the first reading narrowing the scope to a hostile relationship with management."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "Because the original text presents both the general requirements for recognizing an exception and their application to the sale in this case, the first reading may place weight on Application to the facts, while the independent reading may place weight on the requirements for the exception."}], "batch": "a052", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2011Da53683", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask about the unfairness of the KIKO contract and whether it constitutes standard terms and conditions, as well as the scope of the bank's duty to protect customers and duty to explain."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings share the gist: assessment at the time of contract formation, denial that the contract constitutes standard terms and conditions, recognition of the suitability principle and the duty to explain, and a limitation on the scope thereof."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The rights and obligations at the time of contract formation, the possibility of individual negotiation, and the company's financial condition and transaction risk overlap, and only the emphasis on matters such as the level of fees and customer experience differs."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks about the boundary of violation of the suitability principle according to the contract amount and leverage, while the independent reading asks about the boundary at which a duty to explain arises by reason of high fees."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "Because the original text sets out the requirements for individual negotiation and for the arising of duties while directing that the various circumstances of the company and the customer be considered under a totality of circumstances, the first reading may place weight on states requirements, while the independent reading may place weight on totality of circumstances."}], "batch": "a052", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2011Do1651", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask about the establishment of the offense of breach of trust upon the transfer of the hotel provisional registration and the calculation of the amount of gain, while the independent reading also includes the effect of a final and conclusive judgment and the issue of amendment of the indictment."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings take the view that the offense of breach of trust is established by reason of the risk of impossibility of performance and that the omission of deducting the encumbrance from the amount of gain does not affect the outcome of the judgment."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The central elements overlap: the risk of impossibility of performance, disadvantage to the right of defense, determination of identity of facts, and valuation reflecting the encumbrances on the real estate."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask what circumstances negate the risk of impossibility of performance where restoration of the name in the provisional registration is possible."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a052", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2001Do3531", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "The independent reading also addresses the clarity of the penal provision, but the central question is the same: whether aggravated punishment applies where the amount of loss cannot be calculated, and the assessment of the lending limit and of refinancing."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "The independent reading adds a denial of violation of the principle of clarity, but the answer is the same: no aggravated punishment, the standard of the person to whom the proceeds are substantively attributed, and the exclusion of refinancing absent special circumstances."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The central elements overlap by more than half: the impossibility of calculating the amount of loss, the substantive attribution of the loan proceeds, and the extension of the due date through refinancing."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks whether aggravated punishment is possible where the amount of loss is calculated by another method, while the independent reading asks what special circumstances would justify treating refinancing as a loan exceeding the limit."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "Because the original text contains both the application to cases in which the amount of loss cannot be calculated and general standards concerning the person to whom proceeds are substantively attributed and the exception for refinancing, it may be read differently as Application to the facts and as states requirements."}], "batch": "a053", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2007Da71271", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "The independent reading also includes the return of excess insurance proceeds, but the central question is the same: whether consent to an interim settlement of retirement pay is subject to avoidance and whether board approval is required for enrollment in retirement insurance."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings took the view that the consent to an interim settlement is not subject to avoidance, that board approval is not required for the enrollment in the relevant insurance, and that the amount received in excess of the retirement pay must be returned."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The central elements overlap: property not belonging to the bankrupt estate, the absence of conflict of interest and of substantive disadvantage, and the scope of legitimate retirement pay."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks whether insurance that fails to satisfy the requirements, or insurance under which refunds are attributed to the company, is subject to avoidance, while the independent reading asks the specific scope in which enrollment in insurance causes substantive disadvantage to the company."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a053", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2009Do6411", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "The independent reading also addresses the calculation of profit and the reporting obligation of the beneficial owner, but the central question is the same: whether transactions in the name of a foreign corporation and failure to report constitute fraudulent unfair trading."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings took the view that deception cannot be conclusively asserted from transactions that conform to the facts alone, and that failure to report does not amount to the use of documents, while the independent reading added the calculation of profit and the reporting obligation."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The central elements overlap: special circumstances such as the provision of false information, the use of documents, the causation between the profit and the violation, and the reporting obligation arising from beneficial ownership."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks about the boundary at which exaggeration or provision of information concerning a foreign corporation becomes deception, while the independent reading asks for a calculation method that separates profits attributable to the violation from other causes such as market fluctuations."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a053", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2000Da67075", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask whether the provision of security without consideration constitutes a gratuitous act notwithstanding a grace period granted for the guarantee obligation."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings took the view that the existing guarantee obligation and a temporary grace period do not change the conclusion that the act is a gratuitous act."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The elements of absence of consideration and the six months preceding default overlap, and the general element of reduction in assets and the specific act of providing security also substantially correspond."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks about indirect economic benefits received from the principal debtor or an affiliated company, while the independent reading asks whether a long-term extension of the payment period or a partial release of the debt has the character of consideration."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a054", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2000Do137", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "The first reading concentrates on cases where a prior-ranking maximum amount mortgage exists, but the central question of both readings is the calculation of the amount of gain from the use of security obtained by deception."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings took the view that the market value and the maximum amount of the claim serve as the basis, but that where special circumstances exist, the actual amount of the prior-ranking secured claim is deducted."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The central elements overlap: the market value of the real estate, the prior-ranking maximum amount of the claim, and the special circumstances in which only the actual amount of the secured claim is recognized."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask by what specific facts the special circumstances in which only the amount of the prior-ranking actual secured claim is recognized may be confirmed."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a054", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2000Do28", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "The independent reading specifies the crime unit at which the amount of gain is calculated, but both readings ask about the scope of the loss amount and the amount of gain for unsound loans."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings read that the entire amount of loans exposed to risk is treated as the loss amount and as a third-party benefit, and that the amount of gain is calculated on the unit of a simple single offense or a single comprehensive offense."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The central elements of the risk of loss arising and the calculation of the amount of gain according to a simple single offense or a single comprehensive offense overlap."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks whether the loss amount includes portions that bear no risk due to sufficient collateral, and the independent reading asks the point in time of the standard for the materials by which repayment ability and the status of collateral are assessed."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "Since the original text fixes the scope of the loss amount of unsound loans and explains the crime unit of the amount of gain, the first reading may place weight on application to that case, and the independent reading may place weight on states requirements for general calculation."}], "batch": "a054", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2000Da50275", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask whether the disposition of an object of pledge is subject to avoidance and whether value reimbursement may be claimed instead of restoration to the original state."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings read that the disposition of pledged property is treated in substance as an act of execution and recognized as subject to avoidance, and approved the judgment of the court below, which permitted value reimbursement."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "Restrictions on the enforcement of individual security interests, the prohibition of acts extinguishing claims outside the reorganization procedure, and substantive identity with an act of execution are the central elements that overlap."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask the point in time of the calculation standard for the amount of value reimbursement for securities."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 6, "note": "Since the original text derives the scope of the subject of avoidance from the purpose of the statutory provisions but does not specify its relation to precedent, the first reading may focus on setting out the standard, and the independent reading may focus on the absence of information with which to confirm Relation to precedent."}], "batch": "a054", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2000Do3483", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "The independent reading also addresses conspiracy and habitualness, but both readings share the central questions of whether formal reinvestment constitutes a separate fraud and of the actual amount of gain."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings read that a formal reinvestment involving no receipt of funds is not a separate fraud, and that the amount of gain must be calculated in substance."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The elements of the meeting of minds in conspiracy, the circumstances of the offense relating to habitualness, the actual amount of gain, and reinvestment without receipt of funds overlap."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks the scope of aggregation of the amount of gain where additional funds were partially received, and the independent reading asks whether a separate fraud is constituted where new property rights were relinquished."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 3, "note": "Since the ordering states that the part of the judgment of the court below concerning the defendants is the subject of reversal and remand, the first reading may reflect the type of disposition, and the independent reading may reflect that the subject of reversal is limited to a specified part."}], "batch": "a054", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2000Do3350", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask about the punishment of an act of using undisclosed information for a corporation (juristic person) and the possibility of applying the former law without a change in the indictment."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings recognize the application of the former law where there is no difference in the punishment of officers and employees and in the severity of the penalty, and the independent reading specifies the conditions of the identity of facts and the right of defense."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "An act of use on another's account, the identity between the facts charged and the facts found, and the identity in the severity of the penalty overlap, so the central elements are the same."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks the case in which the statutory penalty changes, and the independent reading asks the case in which the severity of the penalty is the same but the content of the defense changes."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a055", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2000Do2827", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings center on whether circumstances in which default is nearly certain constitute material information and on the disclosure requirement, and the independent reading also includes constituent elements relating to the fine."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings recognize the illustrative scope of material information, the inclusion of information on the certainty of default, and the prohibition on use prior to disclosure, and the independent reading adds a determination relating to the fine."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The impact on investment judgment, the certainty of default, the perspective of a reasonable investor, and disclosure in the statutory method overlap."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks the criterion for the point in time at which default becomes nearly certain, and the independent reading asks the materiality criterion for information on financial difficulty that falls short of that stage."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a055", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2000Do1899", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings address the calculation of the amount defrauded and the relationship between the offense of fraud and the offense of violation of the Act on Door-to-Door Sales, etc., and the independent reading also includes conspiracy and the amount of gain for each victim."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings treat the entirety of the delivered property as the amount defrauded and recognize substantive concurrence of the two offenses, and the independent reading adds proof of conspiracy and limitations on the aggregation of amounts of gain."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The combination of the will to realize the crime, relevant indirect facts, the entirety of the delivered property, and the constituent elements and the protected legal interest overlap, so the central elements are the same."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks the individual calculation of the amount of gain of the offense of fraud for each victim, and the independent reading asks what indirect facts can prove conspiracy and intent even where involvement in the execution is denied."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 7, "note": "Since the original text explains strict proof of conspiracy and proof by indirect facts, the first reading may read out the prosecutor's burden, and the independent reading may note that the subject bearing the burden is not specified."}], "batch": "a055", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2000Da23440", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask whether the extinctive prescription runs from the time of recognition of the violating act or from the time of conviction."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings take the time when the fact that the violating act occurred was learned as the starting point and exclude the time of the pronouncement or the finality of conviction."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The core elements are the same: the time of recognition of the fact of the violating act and the time of the pronouncement or the finality of conviction."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask the concrete scope of the recognition required for prescription to run, and the first reading concretizes this as whether loss and causation were recognized."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a055", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2008Da45828", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask whether, in place of the deposit account holder whose real-name verification has been completed, the contributor of funds may be recognized as a party to the deposit contract."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings take the person named in the account as the party in principle, and read that recognition of the contributor requires a clear agreement and strict objective proof."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The entries of real-name verification, a clear meeting of minds, objective evidence, and the circumstances of the funding are common, so the central elements overlap by more than half."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks the effect of a separate agreement designating the contributor as a party, and the independent reading asks the scope of the concrete evidence for recognizing a meeting of minds."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 7, "note": "Since the original text requires strict proof for the recognition of an exception, the first reading may read it as the burden of the party asserting it, and the independent reading may note that the subject bearing the burden of proof is not specified."}], "batch": "a056", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2011Du2361", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask whether content other than personal identification information may also be withheld on grounds of concern over invasion of privacy."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings read that the content of statements other than personal details is also subject to non-disclosure where the disclosure of intimate secrets poses a risk of impeding privacy."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The independent reading adds the amendment history and the constitutional basis, but the central elements of the disclosure of intimate secrets and the risk of invasion of privacy are common, so half overlaps."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks the boundary of matters concerning an individual that are subject to privacy-infringement review, and the independent reading asks the scope of separate disclosure where disclosable information and non-disclosable information are mixed."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 6, "note": "Since the original text explains the scope of non-disclosure by content beyond personal identification information, the first reading may read it as a new standard, and the independent reading may reserve confirmation in that the majority opinion does not specify its relation to prior precedents."}], "batch": "a056", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2015Da5170", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "The first reading focuses on the specific dismissal at a government-funded research institute, and the independent reading also encompasses plagiarism determinations, but the propriety of a dismissal on grounds of misconduct in a degree thesis is the same central question."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "The first reading emphasizes the specification of the grounds for dismissal at a government-funded research institute and whether there is manifest unfairness, and the independent reading emphasizes general criteria for comprehensive assessment, but the direction of the determination on the plagiarism determination and the propriety of the dismissal is the same."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "Three central elements overlap: research ethics at the time of writing, the degree of research misconduct throughout the thesis, and the content and period of work after employment."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks the appropriate level of source indication for re-citation of translated material, and the independent reading asks the conditions for permitting the correction of minor typographical errors after the degree was conferred."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 6, "note": "If attention is paid to the portion of the original text setting out specific criteria for plagiarism and self-plagiarism, it may be read as a new standard, and if attention is paid to the portion applying the general legal principle on the propriety of dismissal, it may be read as following existing precedents."}], "batch": "a056", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2012Do3840", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "The independent reading includes even the requirements for establishing the offense of breach of trust, but the central question is the same: the method of calculating the amount of gain for purposes of aggravated punishment."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings acknowledged a breach of duty, yet read that damages and the amount of gain cannot be calculated solely from the arithmetic mean of the total purchase price."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The central elements — the subject of the offense of breach of trust, the act of breach of duty, and the amount of financial gain — are common to both."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks about an alternative calculation method where the amount of gain cannot be determined, while the independent reading asks about a specific amount of gain reflecting the individual transaction terms."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "Because the Holdings address both the meaning of the constituent elements of the offense of breach of trust and matters requiring attention in calculating the amount of gain, the first reading may focus on the application of the specific calculation method, while the independent reading may focus on the presentation of the general requirements."}], "batch": "a057", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2009Do7813", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask whether the crime of occupational breach of trust is established in connection with loans exceeding the limit, and whether the amounts of gain from multiple loans may be aggregated."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings understood that exceeding the limit alone is insufficient and that a risk of recovery is required, and that the amounts of gain from multiple loans constituting a single comprehensive offense are aggregated."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "Review of an appropriate lending limit based on credit standing and securing of collateral overlap by more than half, and the central elements of the breach of trust determination are likewise the same."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask at what boundary a risk of recovery may be acknowledged where repayment ability or collateral is secured in part."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "Because the Holdings contain together the requirements for the general offense of breach of trust and for a single comprehensive offense, as well as specific loan approval cases, the first reading may be classified as centering on case application, and the independent reading as centering on \"states requirements\"."}], "batch": "a057", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2009Do3712", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask about the amount of damages where a security interest is created after the tenant has acquired the effect against third parties, and about the effect of the calculation error on the judgment."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings treated the amount by which the remaining security value falls short of the loan amount as damages, and read that even after correction the case falls within the same aggravated punishment range, that there is no effect on sentencing, and that the calculation error does not change the outcome of the judgment."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The calculation of damages based on the security value and the sequence of the tenant's acquisition of the effect against third parties and the creation of the maximum amount mortgage substantially overlap."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks about the case in which the corrected damages fall outside the aggravated punishment range, while the independent reading asks about the case in which sentencing is affected even within the same range."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a057", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2006Da58578", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask how to set the event period and the estimation period in analyzing the causation between price manipulation and investment losses."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings read that the event period is in principle set from the start date of the price manipulation, and that periods that are excessively old or that precede structural changes are excluded from the estimation period."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The central elements of price manipulation, investor losses, and the setting of the event period and the estimation period are shared."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks about special circumstances that would move the start date of the event period earlier, and the independent reading asks about the temporal boundary at which the estimation period would be regarded as excessively long."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 6, "note": "The Holdings present a method for setting the periods but do not clarify the relationship with existing precedent, so readings may diverge between one that attends to the presentation of the standard itself and one that withholds confirmation of whether it is a new standard."}, {"axis": 7, "note": "The Holdings address the method of determining loss and adequate causation (proximate cause), but do not specify the attribution of the burden of proof, so readings may diverge between one that presupposes proof by the claiming party and one that reflects only explicit mentions."}], "batch": "a057", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2017Do1616", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "The independent reading also covers whether transactions for a corporation are punishable, but the central question is the same: the possibility of calculating profits where another cause has intervened."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings concluded that causation is not negated by the intervention of another cause that could ordinarily have been foreseen, and that the calculation of profits itself cannot be regarded as impossible."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The Work of the corporation, calculation for the account of oneself or another person, foreseeability of another cause, and causation between the violation and the profits are common to both."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings leave open the question of determining the point at which the effect of the information on the stock price was exhausted and reflecting that in the calculation of the profit amount."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 3, "note": "Since the order states that it reverses and remands the part of the judgment of the court below concerning the defendants, one may place focus on remand as the method of disposition, or even indicate the limitation of the scope of reversal."}, {"axis": 4, "note": "Since Holdings addresses the method of calculating profits together with foreseeability of another cause and causation, one may place focus on the application to specific causes, or read it as a comprehensive judgment of multiple factors."}], "batch": "a057", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2016Do6297", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "The two readings treat as the same central question the necessity of causation between the establishment of unfair trading through the use of false financial statements and misunderstanding."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "The gist is the same with regard to the establishment of the act of using documents, the absence of any need to prove actual misunderstanding and causation, the calculation of the benefit of the accomplice as a whole, and the prosecution's burden of proof."}, "factors": {"same": false, "note": "The first emphasizes causation with the misunderstanding, the calculation of benefit, and the burden of proof, while the Independent concentrates on the materiality of the false financial statements and the recognition and active exploitation of the possibility of misunderstanding, so the central elements and the overlapping scope differ."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first asks about the gain on sale of shares acquired prior to market price manipulation and the exceptions to the calculation of net trading profit, whereas the Independent asks about the method of separating the contribution of independent market factors."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a058", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2008Do6551", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Together asks whether, where an account and funds are provided and investors are solicited, a joint principal offender by conspiracy is established, and whether only the imprisonment sentence, among the concurrently imposed sentences, may be subject to discretionary reduction."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Reads it as unlawful to recognize a joint principal offender by conspiracy as to the relevant acts of participation and to apply discretionary reduction only to the concurrently imposed imprisonment sentence."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The independent omits the solicitation of investors, but the principal elements—conspiracy and denial of intent, provision of the account and funds, and the concurrent imposition of an imprisonment sentence and a fine—overlap."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "Asks at what boundary functional control over the act may be recognized where only an account and funds are provided without soliciting or managing investors."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "Because the original presents both the requirements for the establishment of a joint principal offender by conspiracy and cases recognizing it, the first may place weight on concrete application and the independent on the general requirements."}, {"axis": 7, "note": "Because the original addresses methods of proof where the fact of conspiracy and intent are denied without specifying the responsible party, the first may be read as concerning the prosecution's burden of proof, while the independent may be read as containing no explicit mention."}], "batch": "a058", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2009Da40349", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "The central question is the same: the order of application of the insufficient advance payments and the treatment of the revived claim that could not be exercised by avoidance after the interested parties' meeting."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Read identically the priority application of delay damages, the return of claims of the same nature according to the terms of the reorganization plan, and the denial of effect to a modification of a common benefit claim made without consent."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The central elements—insufficient advance payments, avoidance after the interested parties' meeting, inability to exercise the revived claim, and modification of rights under the reorganization plan—substantially overlap."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask whether there are special circumstances constituting an exception to the principle of priority application of delay damages."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a058", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2013Mo1970", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "It asks whether the interest in a quasi-appeal remains if the seized items are returned while the quasi-appeal against the disposition refusing return is pending."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "If the purpose is achieved by the return, the quasi-appeal becomes improper, and the corresponding portion of the court below is reversed and the quasi-appeal dismissed, the gist being the same."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The central elements overlap: quasi-appeal against a disposition ordering return, attainment of purpose during the pendency of the lawsuit, and loss of interest."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "It asks whether the interest in a quasi-appeal is extinguished by the return even where the challenge is directed not at the return itself but at the illegality of the method of execution of a warrant."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "The original text sets forth the general requirements concerning the interest in a quasi-appeal and its loss, and since the decretal part of the judgment directly reverses the corresponding portion and dismisses the quasi-appeal, independence may focus on the requirements and the primary on Case handling."}], "batch": "a058", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2019Do11967", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "It asks together about the admissibility of evidence of electronic information for which the right to participate was not guaranteed, and the eligibility of independently obtained seizure-related documents as corroborating evidence for a confession."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "While denying the admissibility of evidence of the electronic information, it acknowledges the possibility that the documents relating to voluntary submission at the scene may corroborate the confession to the relevant offense."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The central elements overlap: guarantee of the right to participate, whether the defect is cured by a later warrant or consent to evidence, and the degree of the corroborating evidence for the confession."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first question asks about the limits on the use of corroborating evidence for offenses committed at different times and places, while the independent question asks about the sufficiency of the actual corroboration for offense No. 26, which was remanded."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "The original text presents the lawful requirements for the seizure of electronic information and the degree of corroborating evidence, and, since the dispositive part orders reversal and remand of only offense No. 26, the independent question may place weight on the general requirements and the first question on the application to a specific offense."}], "batch": "a058", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2015Do10648", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings raise the admissibility of evidence of emails seized without presentation of the original warrant and without service of the seizure documents."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "The independent reading expressly addresses whether an exception is recognized, but both readings deny the admissibility of evidence of the relevant emails."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The central elements overlap: facsimile transmission of a copy of the warrant, non-presentation of the original, and non-service of the seizure record and the list of seized items."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks about the lawful method of executing a remote seizure, while the independent reading asks about circumstances that would exceptionally warrant recognizing admissibility of evidence even for an unlawful seizure."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a059", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2013Mo1969", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask whether, after the completion of search and seizure of electronic information, individual stages alone may be separately quashed."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings read that the gravity of the illegality is assessed on the basis of the entire procedure, and that the procedure cannot be quashed on the basis of that infringement of the right to participate alone."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The completion of the search and seizure, the quasi-appeal seeking quashing of individual stages, and the gravity of the illegality affecting the entire procedure substantially overlap."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask whether there are special circumstances permitting stage-by-stage determination, and the first reading adds the issue of exclusion of the right to participate during the search stage."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a059", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2018Da241403", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask whether the announcement of the investigation results and the time of the prosecution and reporting may be taken as the starting point of the extinctive prescription for employer's vicarious liability."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings read that the requisite facts cannot be regarded as having been recognized in a realistic and specific manner at around that time, and that the court below's determination of the starting point was therefore wrong."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The central element of recognition of the requisite facts, such as the unlawful tortious act, adequate causation with the harm, and the use relationship, overlaps by more than half."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask when the actual starting point of the extinctive prescription is, and the first reading narrows the candidates to the time of pronouncement of judgment in the criminal and civil first instance."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a059", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2014Do16980", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask about the concurrence (number of offenses) of the fraud that induced the provision of security over co-owned real property and the determination of the amount of gain for aggravated punishment."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings read an imaginary concurrence of the offense of fraud as to each victim and the impermissibility of aggregating the amount of gain, and the independent reading adds the valuation of the benefit obtained from the use of the security."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "Fraud against multiple victims, the identity of the intent and the method of commission, and the fact that it constitutes a single act of deception are central elements that overlap by more than half."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask in what kind of joint relationship among co-owners the identity of the protected legal interest and a single comprehensive offense may be recognized."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "As the original text sets out the general standards for the number of offenses as to each victim and the calculation of the amount of gain, while ordering a partial reversal and remand, the first reading may be classified as focusing on the application to the case, and the independent reading on the statement of the general requirements."}], "batch": "a059", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2015Da227017", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask about the effect of a supplementary funding agreement that violates a prohibitory provision and whether the avoidance period may be extended by reason of a special relationship with the principal debtor."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings read that a violation of a prohibitory provision does not render the agreement void by operation of law as such, and that the creditor's special relationship is required for an extension of the avoidance period."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The civil-law effect of a violation of a prohibitory provision and the question whether the creditor holding a claim against a guarantor has a special relationship are central elements that overlap by more than half."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks about the civil-law effect of the cancellation of the guarantee ordered as a corrective measure, and the independent reading asks whether the supplementary funding agreement itself constitutes an unlawful act in evasion of the law."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a059", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2015Do3707", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Although there is a difference in description between the specific sale of shares and general criteria of determination, the central questions of materiality, non-public status, and whether the information was used are the same."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "The gist is the same: the effect of material information on investment judgment, its non-public status prior to statutory disclosure, and the determination of the use of the information through the circumstances of the transaction and the like."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "Whether disclosure was made by a statutory method in accordance with the corporation's decision and the requirement of use of the information are central elements that overlap."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first asks about the materiality of settlement information in theme stocks, and the independent asks for the criteria distinguishing the effect of the information in transactions made under a pre-arranged trading plan."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "The Holdings set out the meaning of material information and the requirements for its use, and the order dismisses the final appeal; therefore, the first may be regarded as focusing on the application to the concrete transaction, and the independent on the general requirements."}], "batch": "a060", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2006Do6464", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "It asks together about the constitution of a single comprehensive offense for repeated loans involving breach of trust and whether interest payments and loan commissions are included in the amount of damage."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "The gist is the same regarding the requirements for a single comprehensive offense, the occurrence of damage through a new loan that could be used, and the inclusion of interest payments and necessary expenses."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "Multiple instances of an act of breach of trust, the use of new loan funds for interest payments, and loan-related necessary expenses all overlap."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first asks about the damage from refinancing only on paper without any actual receipt of funds, and the independent asks about the amount of damage where existing principal was actually repaid with new loan funds."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a060", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2024Do1881", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "It asks about the objective relevance between videos of other offenses found in a mobile phone seized on suspicion of illegal filming and the alleged facts stated in the warrant."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "The gist is the same: concrete relevance based on habitual nature, sexual propensity, or the like, and the admissibility of evidence of additional videos seized under a separate warrant."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "Habitual nature, sexual propensity, and the likelihood that files constituting direct evidence remain on the mobile phone are central elements that overlap."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "In common, it asks the limits of recognizing the objective relevance of videos whose time and place differ greatly, but the first also adds the specificity of the warrant for investigating other offenses."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "As the Holdings connect habitual nature, sexual propensity, and the likelihood of the files remaining, and the order reverses the not guilty portion, the first may be regarded as focusing on application to the case, and the independent on the comprehensive assessment of the various circumstances."}], "batch": "a060", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2018Mu635", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "The central question is whether, in litigation relief, an obvious defeat on appeal may be presumed from a first-instance defeat alone."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "The gist is the same: no positive showing of the likelihood of success is required, and an obvious defeat on appeal cannot be presumed from a first-instance defeat alone."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The degree of showing required for the condition of not being an obvious defeat and the fact of a first-instance defeat are core elements that overlap."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first asks the degree of showing of lack of financial means, and the independent asks whether the requirements for recognition as a refugee are satisfied on the merits in the appellate court."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 7, "note": "If the requirements for litigation relief and the degree of showing in the Holdings are read as a matter of the applicant's burden, they may be classified under the asserting party, and if distinguished from an express allocation of the burden of proof, they may be classified as not addressed."}], "batch": "a060", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2011Do14247", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "The question is the same: the effect of post hoc return or repayment on embezzlement and fraud, and the scope of additional collection of profits obtained from the use of undisclosed information."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "The gist is the same: post hoc restitution or repayment does not change the constitution of the crime or the amount, and post hoc use of the illegally obtained proceeds attributed to the offender is not deducted from the amount of additional collection."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "Although restitution of the embezzled funds and fraudulent accounting are added in the first, the central elements—intent and ability to make restitution or repayment, provision of security, and profits gained or losses avoided through the violation—overlap."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first asks the limits of additional collection of profits attributed to an accomplice or a third party, and the independent asks the circumstances in which a court may exercise its discretion not to order additional collection."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "The Holdings set out whether a crime is constituted and the meaning of illegally obtained proceeds, and the order dismisses the final appeal; therefore, the first may be regarded as focusing on the application to the specific amount of additional collection and the like, and the independent on the general requirements."}, {"axis": 7, "note": "The Holdings provided address the constitution of a crime and the scope of illegally obtained proceeds but do not expressly state the burden of proof; therefore, the first may be regarded as having inferred the party bearing the burden of proof in a criminal case, and the independent as having classified on the basis of whether express mention was made."}], "batch": "a060", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2022Da231717", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask whether a subcontractor may assert a right to claim direct payment by invoking the effect of avoidance of an assignment of claim."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings read that, absent special circumstances, the subcontractor in this case may not assert a right to claim direct payment by invoking the effect of avoidance."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The scope of third parties, whether the person is the counterpart of the exercise of the right of avoidance, and the absence of special circumstances are central elements that overlap."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask the specific content of the special circumstances under which the effect of avoidance extends to third parties."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a061", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2022Da283602", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Although the independent reading also includes the scope of the appellate trial, the central question—the revival of the claim for registration after avoidance of the act of registration and the impossibility of performance of the registration obligation—is the same."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings read in the same sense the validity of the underlying act, the retroactive revival of the claim for registration, and the impossibility of performance after the avoidance judgment becomes final and the avoidance registration is completed."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The criteria for determining a change to one's detriment, the validity of the underlying act, and the finalization of the avoidance judgment and the completion of the avoidance registration are elements that substantially overlap."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks the criteria for determining the debtor's attributable cause necessary for a claim for damages, and the independent reading asks whether impossibility of performance may be recognized even prior to the avoidance registration."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a061", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2016Do9027", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Although the independent reading also includes intent as to breach of trust in respect of business judgment, the central question—embezzlement of a slush fund as to which use for company purposes is asserted, and the recognition of the amount for aggravated punishment—is the same."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings read that where there is a possibility that the funds were used for company purposes, the full amount of embezzlement and the minimum amount for aggravated punishment cannot be recognized on the basis of a lack of materials alone."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The purpose of misappropriation and intent of unlawful gain, the recognition of the act of embezzlement, the amount embezzled, and business judgment are central elements that substantially overlap."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks the scope of a guilty finding for the general offense of embezzlement in the course of business where the amount cannot be specified, and the independent reading asks the specific scope and amount of personal use proven in the remand proceedings."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a061", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2014Da68761", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask about the burden of proof concerning the extinction of the effect of the right of avoidance upon the closing of rehabilitation proceedings before recovery of the property and concerning the scope of the collateral value of the rehabilitation security right."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings are understood to hold that the effect of exercising the right of avoidance is extinguished upon the closing of the proceedings before recovery of the property, and that the scope of the collateral value must be asserted and proved by the holder of the rehabilitation security right."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The central factors overlap: the closing of the proceedings before recovery of the property and the scope calculated by deducting the amount of the senior secured claim from the value of the collateral."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks whether the effect of the preexisting right of avoidance may revive or be exercised again in new rehabilitation proceedings, while the independent reading asks about the specific amount of the rehabilitation security right claim reflecting the senior claim amount and delay damages."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a061", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2007Da24459", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask about the requirements under which an insider bears the obligation to return short-swing trading profits with respect to another person's stock trading."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings are understood to hold that one must be the direct trading party or must be able to equate another person's trading with one's own act, and that the entrustment of trading in this case satisfies that requirement."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The central factors overlap: the purpose of the disgorgement system and whether one qualifies as an insider bearing the obligation to return."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "The independent reading narrows the question to cases where only funds are provided without entrusting the trading, but both readings ask about additional circumstances required to equate another person's trading with the insider's act."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a061", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2011Do9457", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "The independent reading also includes the point in time when material information is created, but the central question is the same: whether parties to a verbal contract lacking procedural requirements fall within the scope of regulation."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings present the same answers: recognition of a regulated person by virtue of a position of access to information, exclusion of mere negotiations, and creation of the information when it is concretized."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The position of access to information, the procedural requirements of a contract, whether the contract is verbal, and the point in time when material information is created all overlap."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask about the criteria distinguishing mere negotiations from a legally binding verbal contract."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a062", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2020Da221631", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask about the meaning of suspension of payments in bankruptcy after rescission of a composition and the possibility of avoiding acts of third parties."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings are understood to limit suspension of payments to a state of crisis directly connected to bankruptcy proceedings and to recognize the avoidance of acts of third parties that may be equated with the debtor's acts."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "Rescission after approval of the composition and bankruptcy, a suspension of payments or a comparable state of crisis directly connected to bankruptcy proceedings, and acts of third parties overlap."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks whether delay in partial payment falls within a state of crisis, while the independent reading asks, beyond collusion, about circumstances by which a third party's act may be equated with the debtor's act."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "Because the original text presents the scope of suspension of payments and the subject of avoidance on the premise that a particular procedural course has run, the first reading may be seen as placing weight on the specific application under that premise, and the independent reading on the general requirements for establishment."}], "batch": "a062", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2016Do9596", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "The independent reading expressly specifies the procedural requirements as well, but the central question of both readings is the admissibility of evidence as to past unlawful filming videos found on a voluntarily submitted mobile phone."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings recognize the relevance of videos of the same type and the limitation of the scope of seizure by relevance, and recognize admissibility of evidence on the basis of the circumstances of participation and the absence of any substantive infringement of rights."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The independent reading adds the will of the person submitting the evidence, but the central factors all overlap: relevance and probative value, evidence of the same type, opportunity to participate, and a specified inventory of seized items."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks whether other videos may be seized where the scope of submission was expressly limited, while the independent reading asks about the effect of non-service of the inventory of seized items where photographic identification is difficult."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "Because the original text states the general requirements of relevance and procedural guarantees while describing a finding of illegality as the principle, the first reading may focus on application according to individual circumstances and the independent reading on the statement of the general requirements."}], "batch": "a062", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2012Do2623", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask about the calculation of the amount of loss in the offense of breach of trust relating to the purchase of shares and about the effect that an error in calculating the amount has on a judgment imposing aggravated punishment."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "The independent reading adds a method of valuing unlisted shares, but the gist is the same: recognition of loss in the amount of the difference or the entire acquisition price, and denial of the effect of the calculation error because the same aggravated punishment range applies."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The central factors overlap: subscription for new shares of a company having no substantive value, the fair value of the shares, and application of the aggravated punishment provision according to the corrected amount."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks about the special circumstances warranting adding a management premium, while the independent reading asks about the criteria for selecting a valuation where the results of several reasonable valuation methods differ."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "Because the original text deals with both the method of valuing the loss and the effect that a calculation error has on the outcome of the judgment, the first reading may place weight on the application—maintaining the judgment after correction of the amount—and the independent reading on the general requirements for calculation and finding of error."}], "batch": "a062", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2013Da76253", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask whether an outside director who engaged in no substantive activity can be exempt from liability for misrepresentation in a business report on that ground alone."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings are understood to require investigation reasonably expected, the grounds for reliance, and proof of actual reliance, and to hold that there is no exemption merely for lack of activity."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The central factors overlap: whether the misrepresentation could not have been known despite the exercise of due care, and the absence of substantive activity by the outside director."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks about the degree of investigation required of an outside director who did in fact engage in activity, while the independent reading asks about the ultimate scope of liability where, upon remand, other grounds for exemption or the absence of causation is proved."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 7, "note": "Because the original text addresses proof of the requirements for exemption by the person liable for damages, the characterization may differ depending on whether the same director is referred to as the party asserting exemption or as the counterparty to the claim for damages."}], "batch": "a062", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2010Do12928", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask whether actual loss or the specific amount obtained by fraud determines the establishment of the offense of fraud under the Criminal Act."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings are understood to hold that actual loss or the specific value does not determine the establishment of the offense of fraud, and that in calculating the amount of gain for aggravated punishment, the security burden is taken into account."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The central factors—actual loss, the value of the benefit obtained by fraud, the market price of the real property, and the security burden—overlap by more than half."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks about the criteria for recognizing special circumstances warranting ascertaining the senior secured value by the actual claim amount, while the independent reading asks about the specific amount of gain from each act of fraud."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "Since the original text contains both general legal principles on the establishment of the offense of fraud and the calculation of the amount of gain and a case rejecting the grounds for final appeal, the first reading may place weight on the application to the case and the independent reading on the general requirements."}], "batch": "a063", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2005Da22398", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask whether an act harmful to creditors is nonetheless excluded from the subject of avoidance where its reasonableness is recognized."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings are understood to hold that exceptional acts for which necessity and reasonableness or unavoidability are recognized are excluded from the subject of avoidance, and that the determination is made on a comprehensive assessment of the several circumstances."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The central factors—the reasonableness of the act and the requirements for exercising the right of avoidance—are common, and more than half of the presented factors overlap."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks about the decision factors suited to the provision of security and the level of recognition of the possibility of normalization, while the independent reading asks about the determination where the possibility of normalization and creditors' coercion to provide security are both present."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a063", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2017Do10601", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "The independent reading also includes procedural issues, but the two readings share the central question whether advance interest or fees are deducted from the amount obtained by fraud."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings are understood to treat the amount obtained by fraud as the entirety of the property delivered, and also not to treat the omission of a separate statement regarding the grounds for appeal and the difference in the applied provision as grounds for reversing the judgment."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The factors—reversal on the court's own authority on grounds other than those for appeal, partial payment of consideration, and the entirety of the property delivered—overlap by more than half."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks whether the amount of gain for aggravated punishment is calculated without deducting consideration even in fraud for gain, while the independent reading asks whether a separate determination may be omitted even where the grounds for appeal were not actually examined."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "Because the original text states general propositions on procedural illegality and the amount obtained by fraud while dismissing the final appeal, the first reading may be classified as focusing on application to the case and the independent reading on the general decision requirements."}], "batch": "a063", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2018Do20415", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask about the requirements for establishing joint principal offender liability and the degree of proof required to recognize it."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings are to the effect that mere knowledge and acquiescence are insufficient and that a joint criminal design and functional control over the act must be sufficiently proved, while holding that such proof was insufficient in this case."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The content of the joint criminal design and the degree of proof required to recognize joint principal offender liability are shared, so more than half of the core elements overlap."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask at what level the provision of ideas or involvement in a role must be established in order to recognize functional control over the act in market price manipulation."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 7, "note": "Since the original text specifies only the degree of proof required to recognize joint principal offender liability, the primary reading can link this to the prosecution's burden of proof, while the independent reading can place weight on the absence of any express designation of the person responsible."}], "batch": "a063", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2012Do5220", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask whether aggravated punishment based on the amount of profit is possible when the value of the benefit in breach of trust in the course of business cannot be calculated concretely."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings are to the effect that if the value of the benefit cannot be calculated concretely, aggravated punishment is not available, and that the value of the vehicle based on depreciation alone cannot be conclusively taken as the market price."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The impossibility of calculating the value, the requirements for establishing a conspiracy relationship, and the degree of specification of the facts charged in a single comprehensive offense are shared, so more than half of the core elements overlap."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The primary reading asks about the standard for the special circumstances warranting recognition of the depreciated value as the market price, while the independent reading asks about the actual market price of the vehicle and the amount of profit to be ascertained by the court on remand."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "Since the original text presents, together with the disposition ordering reversal and remand, the general proposition that aggravated punishment is unavailable where the value cannot be calculated, the primary reading can place weight on the application to the case, and the independent reading on the requirements for aggravated punishment."}], "batch": "a063", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2006Da32507", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask about the right of avoidance arising upon the conclusion of the reorganization proceedings and the extinction of the claim for return where the right of avoidance has already been exercised."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings are to the effect that if the corporate rehabilitation/reorganization procedure is terminated before recovery of the property, the right of avoidance and the claim for return, among others, are extinguished."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The core elements of the conclusion of the proceedings, the exercise of the right of avoidance during the proceedings, and whether the property was recovered before the conclusion overlap."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "The independent reading narrows the scope to partial recovery, but both readings ask whether the effect of property recovered before the conclusion is maintained even after the conclusion."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "Since the original text sets out the conclusion of the proceedings and the non-recovery of the property as conditions for extinction while dismissing the final appeal, the primary reading can focus on the application to the case, and the independent reading on the requirements for extinction."}], "batch": "a064", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2016Da220198", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "The primary reading asks centered on specific acts of payment and the independent reading generalizes, but the question of the avoidance of third-party acts and preferential acts and the burden of proof of the transferee's good faith overlaps."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "The independent reading specifies the subjective requirements of preferential acts, but the determination that third-party acts in special circumstances and preferential acts may be avoided and that the burden of proof of the transferee's good faith lies on the transferee is the same."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The core elements of third-party acts, the subjective requirements of preferential acts, and the transferee's good faith and the proof thereof overlap."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "The settings of the lending of a name and the absence of collusion differ, but both readings ask about the specific content of the special circumstances under which a third-party act is treated the same as an act of the debtor."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "Since the original text presents the limits of avoidability and the subjective requirements and burden of proof while dismissing the final appeal, the primary reading can focus on maintaining the recognition of avoidance, and the independent reading on the statement of the general requirements."}], "batch": "a064", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2020Do14654", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "The independent reading also asks about the scope of seizure under a warrant designating another person as a suspect, but the central question of the voluntary submission of electronic information through the provision of cloud access information is the same."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings recognize the voluntary submission of cloud electronic information in accordance with the will to submit, and are to the effect that the non-use of the evidence from the mobile phone that was unlawfully seized has no effect on the outcome of the judgment."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The relevance to the suspected facts stated in the warrant, the warrant serving in place of email access authority, and the voluntary provision of access information overlap, and the independent reading states the will to submit more expressly."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "The primary reading includes confirmation of the will to submit and the independent reading focuses on the scope of files, but the unresolved point of fixing the scope of electronic information submission recognized through the provision of access information is the same."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a064", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2015Do760", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask whether a purchase recommendation that fails to disclose a prior purchase and the possibility of future sale constitutes a fraudulent means and deception."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "The independent reading also mentions the need for further examination, but the determination that conduct giving the impression of an objective recommendation through the omission of an interest constitutes a fraudulent means and deception is the same."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The core elements of the recommender's position, the prior purchase and holding, the possibility of future sale, and the non-disclosure of an interest overlap."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The primary reading asks about the relevance between the recommendation and the trading gains where there are external factors affecting the stock price, while the independent reading asks about the degree of specificity required for disclosure of the interest."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "Since the original text presents the legal characterization of a recommendation failing to indicate an interest while ordering reversal and remand, the primary reading can focus on the application of law to that conduct, and the independent reading on the conditions constituting unlawfulness."}], "batch": "a064", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2005Do5774", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "The independent reading also encompasses deception, collusion, and habitual nature, while covering the question of calculating the amount defrauded on which the primary reading focused."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings deduct no consideration paid, include even amounts reinvested after actual receipt in the amount defrauded, and are to the effect of recognizing deception by non-disclosure, implied collusion, and habitual nature despite the absence of prior convictions."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The duty of disclosure, the conspiracy relationship, and habitual nature are core elements common to both, and the independent reading adds the elements of the amount defrauded, namely the payment of consideration and all property delivered."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "The independent reading specifies this as a deposit into an account restricted as to withdrawal and use, but both readings ask about the criterion distinguishing whether there was actual receipt prior to reinvestment."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "Since the original text presents the requirements for deception and collusion and the method of determining the amount defrauded and habitual nature while dismissing the final appeal, the primary reading can focus on the application to the case, and the independent reading on the general requirements for determination."}], "batch": "a064", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2024Da272590", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask about the propriety of the action following a final revocation of bankruptcy and the running of the exclusion period during the bankruptcy proceedings."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings are to the effect that the final revocation of bankruptcy removes the restriction on bringing an action and that the exclusion period is neither tolled nor suspended."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The final revocation of bankruptcy, the extinction of the right of avoidance, and the exclusion period as the nature of the period for exercise are core elements common to both."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The primary reading asks whether the same legal principle applies even upon the conclusion of bankruptcy, while the independent reading asks about the actual date of learning of the ground for avoidance and whether the period for filing an action was observed."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "Since the original text presents the legal principles of the revocation of bankruptcy and the exclusion period while ordering reversal and remand, the primary reading can place weight on the application to the case, and the independent reading on the requirements for determining propriety and the period."}], "batch": "a065", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2017Do7843", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "The independent reading also includes the use of material nonpublic information, but the central question of the establishment of embezzlement and the permissibility of amendment of the indictment in the appellate court is the same."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "The independent reading adds the criterion for the use of information, but the answer on the recognition of intent of unlawful gain and the permissibility of amendment of the indictment in the appellate court where there is identity is the same."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "Knowledge of material nonpublic information and the basic identity of the facts charged overlap, and the independent reading further specifies the attribution of profits from embezzlement and the direction of disposition."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The primary reading asks about the means of responding to infringement of the right of defense caused by the late amendment of the indictment, while the independent reading asks about the scope in which identity and the act of embezzlement may be recognized by the court on remand."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "As the general criteria for the establishment of the crime and for amendment of the indictment together with the disposition ordering partial reversal and remand appear in the original text, the primary reading can emphasize the application to the determination of the court below, and the independent reading can emphasize that each judgment states requirements."}], "batch": "a065", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2024Do4234", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask whether the proceeds from the crime of intrusion into information and communications networks and the crime of obstruction of business may be subject to additional collection where they also fall under crime victim property of fraud."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings are to the effect that the criminal proceeds and the disposed property in question are not excluded from the scope of additional collection merely because they fall under crime victim property of fraud."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The core elements of property arising from obstruction of business, property obtained through disposition, and property acquired from the fraud victim overlap."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The primary reading asks about the coordination of additional collection with recovery of the victim's loss or an order of restitution, while the independent reading asks about the specific amount of additional collection in this case."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "Since the original text clarifies the possibility of additional collection of property obtained through a specific crime and the treatment where such property falls under crime victim property, the primary reading can emphasize the application of law to overlapping property, and the independent reading the statement of requirements for the subject of additional collection."}], "batch": "a065", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2021Da229588", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Asks how to determine the comparison subject and the benchmark wage for damages in wage discrimination against dispatched workers who have all passed the retirement age."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Reads that all consider the passage of the retirement age when selecting the comparison subject and, if a person past the retirement age had been hired, take as the benchmark the appropriate wage that would have been paid."}, "factors": {"same": false, "note": "The passage of the retirement age is common, but the first reading focuses on the common benefit claim character and the actual dispatched status and the selection of the comparison subject, while the independent reading focuses on the awareness of work similarity and involvement in wage determination and the appropriate wage."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "All ask about the materials for calculating the appropriate wage where there are no cases of hiring persons past the retirement age and no practices of similar workplaces."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "Since the source text presents the method of selecting the comparison subject and the standard for the appropriate wage while also requiring consideration of the circumstance of having passed the retirement age, the first reading can emphasize the structure of the requirements, and the independent reading can emphasize the totality of circumstances."}], "batch": "a065", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2013Do12155", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "All ask whether the specification of the charged facts required for application of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes is satisfied where the amounts of embezzlement damage to multiple victims cannot be individually specified."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Reads that specification of the damage amount for each victim is the principle, but an exception is recognized where the mixing of funds makes specification impossible and the composition ratio does not affect the application of aggravated punishment."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The central factors of the damage amount for each victim and the specification of the charged facts, as well as the factors concerning statements of others, overlap, but the detailed factors relating to the amount of damage for breach of trust and the seizure of electronic information differ."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "All ask about the degree of specification of the charged facts required when the aggravated punishment range varies according to the composition ratio of the mixed funds."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "Since the source text recognizes in principle the need to specify the damage amount for each victim and dismisses the final appeal, the first reading can emphasize the application of the principle and the exception to the case, and the independent reading can emphasize the requirements for the specification of the charged facts."}], "batch": "a065", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2018Do19772", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask whether the offense of fraud is established for a loan made with inflated collateral value and whether the loanable amount based on the actual value is deducted."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings read that the offense of fraud is established and that the entire loan amount constitutes the gain, so the loanable amount based on the actual value is not deducted."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The core factors of the false inflation of collateral value, the loan from a financial institution, and the loanable amount based on the actual value overlap."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks about causation where a loan is made on the basis of a low appraised value, and the independent reading asks about causation where a financial institution, aware of the falsity, makes the loan."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "Since the source text addresses together the establishment of the offense of fraud for a loan with inflated collateral value and the calculation of the gain, it can be read differently as application to a specific type of loan or as states requirements for general establishment and calculation."}], "batch": "a066", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2014Da765", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask about the possibility of avoiding the granting of a priority beneficial right under a mortgage trust as a gratuitous act and the scope of the conclusive effect of entries in the rehabilitation claims register."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings read that providing collateral without direct and actual economic benefit is subject to avoidance as a gratuitous act and that the conclusive effect does not extend to the priority beneficial right."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The central factors of providing collateral for another without any obligation, a second-ranking priority beneficial right, and entries in the rehabilitation claims register and conclusive effect overlap."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask whether the necessity and unavoidability of providing collateral warrant recognizing a lack of unjustness, with the independent reading concretizing the case where it was properly asserted in the court of fact."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "Since the source text contains both the meaning of a gratuitous act and the general standards concerning the provision of collateral without any obligation, together with a case holding that the conclusive effect does not extend to the priority beneficial right, the emphasis may diverge between states requirements and Application to the facts."}], "batch": "a066", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2020Do5336", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask whether a warrant whose execution has been completed can be executed again on the ground that its period of validity remains."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings read that, upon completion of execution, the effect of the warrant is lost and a new warrant is required, and that the admissibility of evidence derived from the re-execution of the former warrant is denied."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The core factors of completion of the execution of a warrant, re-execution at the same place or against the same object, and the remaining validity period overlap."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask about the specific determination of the point in time when execution of a warrant is completed, and the first reading additionally raises the possibility of using a messenger account, with consent, in an investigation of a separate case."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "Since the source text presents the conclusion that re-execution is impermissible in the situation of completion of execution and remaining validity period, it can be read differently as application to a specific situation or as stating the effect of a warrant and the requirements for re-execution."}], "batch": "a066", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2005Do9387", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask about the valuation of the gain from property purchased at a low price through deception and whether the receipt of money or goods without any actual intent to make a solicitation constitutes a violation of the former Attorney-at-Law Act."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings read that the gain is valued not at the low price actually paid but at the price that would have applied absent the deception or at market value, and that the crime is established even without any actual intent to make a solicitation."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The valuation of the value of property obtained by fraud and the receipt of money or goods without any actual intent to make a solicitation are the common core, and the independent reading specifies the factual conditions of the low-price purchase and the case concerning the treatment of a public official."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask about special circumstances that would warrant departing from the usual valuation of value, and the first reading additionally raises the order of priority where the price absent the deception differs from the market value."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "Since the source text addresses the meaning of the gain, the method of valuing property, and whether the receipt of money or goods without intent to make a solicitation is established, it can be read differently as application to types of conduct or as states requirements for general valuation and establishment."}], "batch": "a066", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2015Da235582", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask whether payments of deposits to employees and relatives of a savings bank expected to face suspension of business are excluded from the scope of avoidance on grounds of social adequacy."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings read that the deposit payments do not fall within the exception based on social adequacy and that the circumstance of lack of unjustness must be proven by the beneficiary."}, "factors": {"same": false, "note": "Social adequacy and unavoidability overlap, but the first reading lists awareness of harm and the subjective requirements of denial of intent as central factors, while the independent reading cites the expected suspension of business and the circumstance of payments to employees and relatives."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks about lawful payments to ordinary customers during normal business hours, and the independent reading asks about the case where a lawful payment met an urgent necessity of livelihood."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "Since the source text presents both the criteria for determining adequacy and a case denying the exception in light of all the circumstances, it can be read differently as Application to the facts or as the totality of circumstances."}], "batch": "a066", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2011Do10508", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask about the admissibility of evidence of unlawfully collected seized items and of a confession based thereon."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings recognize the exclusionary rule in principle and an exception arising from the attenuation or severance of causation, while denying the admissibility of the evidence in this case."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The first reading also cites the removal of storage media, but the core factors of procedural violations, derivative evidence and confession, and relevance to suspicion of a crime overlap."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask about the specific circumstances that attenuate or sever the causation between the unlawful seizure and the subsequent confession."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "Since the source text addresses together the criteria for determining admissibility of evidence and the lawfulness of the execution of seizure of electronic information, the first reading may place weight on application to the specific execution, and the independent reading on the criteria for recognizing the exception."}], "batch": "a067", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2025Do6356", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask whether the entire increase in the contract amount resulting from an unjustified change in product specifications can be regarded as the counterparty's gain."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings take the view that the ordinarily expected increase in costs must be deducted from the increase in the contract amount, and the independent reading further specifies the exclusion of aggravated punishment where calculation is impossible."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings cite total property value, change in product specifications, the increase in the contract amount, and the ordinary increase in costs as decision factors."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks about the evidentiary materials for and the degree of calculation of the increase in costs and the effect of impossibility of calculation, and the independent reading asks whether the gain after deduction of costs is 500 million won or more."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a067", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2007Do7471", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask about the purpose of inducing misunderstanding in an offense of market manipulation, the purpose of inducing trading, and the meaning of transactions that fluctuate the market price and the method of determining them."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings read it as follows: coexistence with other purposes and awareness of the possibility suffice, an actual price fluctuation is not required, and the offense is recognized by taking circumstantial facts together."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings present as central elements the purpose of inducing misunderstanding, the purpose of inducing trading, and transactions that mislead as to the state of trading or that fluctuate the market price."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask about circumstantial facts that can negate a market manipulation purpose in the case of purchasing shares for an actual corporate acquisition."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "Since the original text presents the meaning of purpose and transactions and the method of determining them, and the disposition is appeal dismissed, the first reading may place weight on the result of application to the case, while the independent reading may place weight on the method of determining purpose and transactions."}], "batch": "a067", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2007Do6336", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask about the method of calculating profits from market manipulation and the scope of liability of a joint principal offender who participated midway in a single comprehensive offense."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings take net sales profits after deduction of transaction costs as the standard, limit the liability of a midway participant to the period after participation, and deny application of aggravated punishment for lack of evidence."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings present as decision factors the profits gained from the violating acts, the joint principal offender who participated midway, and the offenses committed after participation."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask about the method of separately calculating net sales profits after participation where transactions before and after participation are connected."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "Since the original text presents the method of calculating profits and the scope of liability limited to the period after participation, and dismisses the final appeal, the first reading may place weight on application to the case, while the independent reading may place weight on general calculation standards and requirements of liability."}], "batch": "a067", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2005Du8092", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask whether the application of the revised ordinance can be restricted on the ground of reliance on the former building permission standards."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings take as a principle the application of the statutes and regulations in force at the time of the disposition, and permit application of the revised ordinance because the reliance in this case is not superior to the public interest in curbing disorderly development."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "Although the specificity of expression differs, the central elements of protection of reliance on the former ordinance, the absence of transitional provisions, and curbing disorderly development overlap."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask whether the application of the revised ordinance can be restricted where the administrative agency induced reliance on the former ordinance."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "Since the original text presents together the method of weighing reliance against the public interest and the concrete examples following from it, the first reading may place weight on Application to the facts, while the independent reading may place weight on the comparative assessment of reliance and the public interest."}], "batch": "a067", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2022Do3771", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both ask whether the distributor has the status of a victim of fraud in a special-purchase transaction and whether the entire amount of the supply price can be recognized as the amount defrauded."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both require confirmation of the victim in light of the substance of the transaction and a strict calculation of the amount defrauded, and the first reading expressly states even the insufficiency of proof in this case."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "Calculation of the amount defrauded, the subjects of deception, mistake, and disposition, and the characteristics of special-purchase transactions and property offenses are common to both."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks about the amount defrauded in consumer-directed fraud and the question of specifying the number of offenses, while the independent reading asks about the possibility of recognizing the distributor's status as a victim and the amount defrauded upon further examination."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "Since the Holdings present together the requirements for recognizing a victim and the matters to be considered according to the nature of the transaction and the like, the focus may be placed respectively on states requirements and totality of circumstances."}, {"axis": 7, "note": "From the requirements for the establishment of the crime and the question of calculating the amount defrauded in the Holdings, the prosecutor's burden of proof can be read, but since the responsible party is not specified in the original text provided, it may also be read as not addressed."}], "batch": "a068", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2014Da214885", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both ask mainly about the requirements for denial of intent in preferential payment and the beneficiary's burden of proof, and the independent reading also includes the scope of return of interest."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "The denial of intent in preferential payment, the beneficiary's burden of proving good faith and the absence of unjustness, and the determination concerning return of statutory interest from the date of payment are the same, and the independent reading also specifies the point in time of delay in performance."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The subjective requirement of denial of intent, the social propriety and unjustness of the act, and the return of statutory interest are central elements that overlap."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "Both ask what must be added to circumstances such as the depositor's advanced age before the social propriety and unavoidability of the preferential payment can be recognized."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "Viewed with emphasis on the requirements for denial of intent and the burden of proof in the Holdings, it can be read as states requirements, and connected with the disposition of appeal dismissed, with emphasis on the resolution of the concrete dispute, it can be read as Application to the facts."}], "batch": "a068", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2014Da18131", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both ask whether the beneficiary's awareness of a state of insolvency can be used as the basis for judging good faith in preferential provision of security."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both read it as follows: awareness of insolvency cannot be the principal basis for the judgment of good faith, and it must be examined whether there was evasion of equality among creditors and awareness of harm to other creditors."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "Preferential provision of security, insolvency and awareness thereof, evasion of equality among creditors, and awareness of harm to other creditors substantially overlap."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks about the criterion distinguishing an ordinary additional security transaction from a preferential act, while the independent reading asks about the possibility of proving the good faith of the bank concerned after remand."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "Since the Holdings present the subjective requirement of denial of intent and the unimportance of insolvency while also conducting a concrete assessment of the awareness of the bank concerned, they may be divided into states requirements and Application to the facts according to the point of emphasis."}], "batch": "a068", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2013Do4064", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both ask about the criterion for determining whether preferential treatment in transactions provided only to a specific investor constitutes improper means."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both read it as follows: considering the market structure and manner of provision, the risk of loss to other investors, and fairness and the like in totality, the speed priority service in this case was not regarded as improper means."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "Although the way the expression is divided differs, the central element is the same: a financial investment business entity provided investment opportunities or means of trading only to a specific investor."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks whether the conclusion is maintained even in an ordinary securities market lacking a two-sided structure, while the independent reading asks about the degree of risk of loss required in a market where opportunities for trading are infringed or conflicts of interest exist."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a068", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2013Da7264", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both ask whether hedge trading that affects the market price of the underlying asset constitutes unlawful market manipulation."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both read it as follows: where the timing, quantity, and method conform to the hedging purpose, it is not market manipulation unless there are special circumstances such as artificial price manipulation."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "Although the independent reading separately lists the purpose of unjust gain, the central elements of the timing, quantity, and method of the transaction, risk management, and conformity with the hedging purpose overlap."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "Both ask how specifically the special circumstances warranting a finding of impairment of fairness must be shown even in transactions conforming to the hedging purpose."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "Since the Holdings address not only the meaning and criteria of determination of market manipulation but also the conditions for the principle-based exclusion where the transaction conforms to the hedging purpose, emphasis on the entire process of determination reads as totality of circumstances, while emphasis on the conditions for exclusion reads as states requirements."}], "batch": "a068", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2009Do675", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings make the number of offenses of repeated market manipulation, the fine imposed on the accomplice, and the calculation of profits the central questions."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "The determinations of a single comprehensive offense, awareness of the possibility as to the purpose, the imposition and reduction of a fine on the accomplice, and the calculation of net sales profits are the same."}, "factors": {"same": false, "note": "The credibility of the confession and the purpose of market manipulation overlap, but the first reading presents as central elements the punishment of the accomplice and the calculation of profits, while the independent reading presents the disposition, the types of trading, and the purpose of inducing trading."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks about the extent to which the principal offender's profits should be reflected in the upper limit of the accomplice's fine, while the independent reading asks about the scope of transactions to be included in the calculation of profits where ordinary transactions are mixed in."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "Since the Holdings present the meaning and criteria of determination of the purpose and the method of calculating profits, and the disposition dismisses the final appeal, the first reading may emphasize the application to the case, while the independent reading may emphasize the statement of general requirements."}], "batch": "a069", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2009Do13187", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask whether the duplicate pledge agreement for transfer of shares entered into before delivery of the shares and the receipt of the loaned amount constitute commencement of execution of the offense of breach of trust."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "The determination is the same: absent special circumstances, there is a duty to cooperate in the delivery of the shares, and the duplicate pledge agreement and the receipt of the loaned amount constitute commencement of execution."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The four elements of the initial pledge agreement, the non-delivery of the shares, the duplicate agreement with a third party, and the receipt of the loaned amount coincide."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "Both commonly ask about the scope of special circumstances that would negate the duty to cooperate, while the first reading additionally asks about the time of consummation after actual delivery and the amount of gain."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a069", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2005Do5996", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings address whether each constitutes the substantive concurrence of independent improper loans, while the independent reading also asks whether it may be disposed of without amendment of the indictment."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "The requirements for a single comprehensive offense and the determination that the loans in this case constitute substantive concurrence are the same, and the independent reading adds the explanation that amendment of the indictment is unnecessary."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The decision factors for a single comprehensive offense and the factors of the trial record and oral amendment of the indictment overlap, and the independent reading concretizes the requirements of a single comprehensive offense through the loan dates and the independence of the collateral."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask where the boundary lies for viewing multiple loans as a single comprehensive offense based on a single criminal intent, each citing as an example the same counterparty and a single prior plan."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "Because the Holdings contain both the general requirements of a single comprehensive offense and a case applying the loan dates and the independence of the collateral, the first reading may emphasize concrete application, whereas the independent reading may emphasize states requirements."}], "batch": "a069", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2017Do21196", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "The common central question is whether, where part of the construction work has been performed, the amount defrauded by fraud may be regarded as the entire sum received, and the independent reading additionally asks about the amount of damage for breach of trust."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "The determinations are the same as to the establishment of fraud through the exercise of a right by deception, the calculation of the defrauded amount as the entirety of progress payments, and the necessity of proving damage for the aggravated punishment of breach of trust."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "Proof of the occurrence and amount of damage, the exercise of a right through deception, partial payment of consideration, and the calculation of the defrauded amount as the entirety of the sum received are common to both."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks about the permissible scope of deception arising from partial construction and the possibility of limiting the defrauded amount, while the independent reading asks about each defendant's final sentence on remand."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "The Holdings set out the general standards for the establishment of fraud, the calculation of the defrauded amount, and the proof of damage for breach of trust, and the disposition orders a partial reversal and remand, so the emphasis may differ between application to the case and states requirements."}, {"axis": 7, "note": "The Holdings clarify the necessity of proving the occurrence and amount of damage but do not specify who bears the burden of proof, so the first reading may read out the prosecutor's burden while the independent reading may classify it as containing no express mention."}], "batch": "a069", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2022Do1452", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask whether information on a remote server may be seized by a warrant that identifies only the information stored on a device at the scene."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "The strict interpretation of the warrant's language, the need for separate identification of the remote information, and the denial of admissibility of evidence to unlawfully seized materials and related subsequent evidence are consistent across both readings."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The warrant's language designating the objects of seizure, the distinction between information stored on the device at the scene and information on the remote server, and the scope described in the warrant are common to both."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask to what extent the account and the target information must be specified when identifying remote server information in the warrant."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a069", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2022Da212273", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings make the admissibility of expert opinion results that contain errors or that conflict with one another the central question."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings permit partial adoption of expert opinion results and selection or synthesis among them, and read that the assessment of damages reflecting the restriction on use was inadequate."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The erroneous portion, the remainder of the expert opinion results, and multiple conflicting expert opinion results overlap as central factors."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks how damages are to be assessed given the restriction on use, while the independent reading asks about the time of occurrence of damage and the specific amount of compensation."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "The first reading may be viewed as placing weight on the concrete application that led to a partial reversal and remand, while the independent reading places weight on the conditions for the in-principle permissibility of adopting expert opinion results set out in the Holdings."}], "batch": "a070", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2020Du44930", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask whether a notification of the occurrence of short-term trading profit is a disposition."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings recognize its disposition character on the grounds of the disclosure obligation and the absence of remedies, while reading that the conclusion of the court below was upheld due to the lapse of the period for filing an action."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The independent reading specifies the underlying provision, but the central factors of both readings overlap as the statutory notification and the determination of its disposition character."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask about the standing to sue of a person designated as a profit acquirer, other than the recipient of the notification."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "Because the Holdings address both the general method of determining disposition character and the disposition character of the notification at issue, the first reading may be viewed as emphasizing concrete application, while the independent reading emphasizes a comprehensive assessment of the various circumstances."}], "batch": "a070", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2016Do3411", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask about the meanings of unfair means and deception, and the method of determining transaction relevance, the purpose of market price fluctuation, and the like."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings set out the same conceptual definitions and an objective determination made through a comprehensive assessment of the various circumstances."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The four factors of transaction relevance, unfair means, falsehood or deception, and the purpose of market price fluctuation are identical."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks about proof of the unjust profit and causation for aggravated punishment, while the independent reading asks about the boundary at which a lack of grounds for future performance projections becomes unfair trading."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a070", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2013Da210374", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask about the exclusion of liability to return profits outside statutory exceptions, and the deductibility of the management premium and capital gains tax."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings recognize an exception for transactions in which the possibility of using inside information is entirely absent, while reading the liability to return profits in this case and the non-deductibility of the two items in the same direction."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The possibility of using inside information, the management premium, capital gains tax, and property rights overlap as central factors."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask about the specific types of transactions in which involuntariness and complete exclusion of access to inside information are recognized."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "Because the Holdings set out both the conditions for exclusion of liability to return profits and the determination of non-deductibility, the first reading may be viewed as placing weight on the conclusion in the specific case, while the independent reading places weight on the requirements for recognizing the exception."}], "batch": "a070", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2002Da69327", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask about the liability to return profits for transactions in which there is no possibility of using inside information, and the possibility of excluding the management premium."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings read that the return system does not apply to transactions in which the possibility of using inside information objectively does not exist, and that the management premium is included in the profit."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "Transactions in which it is clear that they are not insider trading and the management premium overlap as central factors."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask about the specific criteria for types of transactions in which the possibility of using inside information objectively does not exist."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 6, "note": "The first reading read the legal principle presented as a reconfirmation of existing precedent, while the independent reading placed weight on the fact that the Relation to precedent is not specified in the provided Holdings and disposition."}], "batch": "a070", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2004Do491", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "The independent reading also addresses the offense of acceptance of bribes in breach of trust, but the central question of whether the information constitutes nonpublic information and the calculation of profits from use is the same."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "The gist is the same: nonpublic character is maintained even in speculative reporting until statutory disclosure, and net profits are calculated to include the related shares held and bonds."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The grounds giving rise to the fiduciary relationship, improper solicitation, whether statutory disclosure occurred, and the profits gained from the violation overlap."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks about the criteria for attributing subsequent transactions, while the independent reading asks how the performance risk of the share transfer claim is to be reflected in the assessment."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a071", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2019Do7342", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "The first reading also asks about the relevance of footage from other rooms, but the central question is the same: the effect of the failure to secure the right to participate and to deliver a list in the seizure of a concealed-type camera."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "The gist is the same: on a medium in which commingling with electronic information outside the scope of seizure is hardly possible, admissibility of evidence cannot be denied on the sole basis of the failure to provide an opportunity to participate and to deliver a list."}, "factors": {"same": false, "note": "Relevance and the right to participate overlap, but the first reading raises the residual possibility of direct evidence and ordinary procedure, while the independent reading raises the ambiguity of the intent to submit and the possibility of commingled information, so more than half of the factors do not substantially overlap."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks about the scope of other media to which the exception may apply, while the independent reading asks at what degree of commingling of private information within a concealed-type camera procedural safeguards become necessary."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "Because the Holdings contain both the general principles of relevance and procedural safeguards and the conditions for an exception based on the possibility of commingled information, it may be read differently depending on whether the focus is on application to the specific medium or on states requirements for the exception."}, {"axis": 6, "note": "Because the Holdings address both the principle of guaranteeing the right to participate and the exception for media in which there is little room for commingling, attention to the continuity of the principle would read it as following existing precedent, while attention to the concretization of the exception would read it as a new standard; however, the Relation to precedent cannot be confirmed from the provided original text alone."}], "batch": "a071", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2014Ma188", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "It asks whether investors who continued to hold may also claim damages where the fulfillment of repayment conditions was influenced by unfair means."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "The gist is the same: if loss occurred as a result of influencing the fulfillment of conditions or the like by unfair means, investors who held without any active transaction may also claim damages."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The product structure linked to the price of the underlying asset, the unfair means, and the influence on the fulfillment of conditions and the investors' loss overlap substantially."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks what circumstances permit distinguishing risk-hedging transactions from unfair large-volume sales, and the independent reading asks the actual unfairness of those large-volume sales and the amount of loss."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "The Holdings states the criteria for determining unfair conduct together with the requirements for the influence upon the fulfillment of conditions by unfair means and for damages, so it may be read differently depending on whether attention is paid to the comprehensive evaluation in the former or to the structure of requirements in the latter."}], "batch": "a071", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2017Do19019", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "The question is the same: whether a disclosure whose contents themselves are difficult to regard as false may also constitute unfair means."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "The gist is the same: where a disclosure, in connection with other means or with the contents, purpose, and method of a transaction, is unfair in light of social conventions, it becomes an unfair transaction."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The central elements overlap: the fact that the disclosure reflects the contract, and the unfairness in light of social conventions arising from its connection with other means and transactions."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks the general limit at which ancillary means connected with a truthful disclosure become unfair, and the independent reading asks to what extent the acquirer's financing structure must be disclosed in order to prevent misapprehension."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "The Holdings directs that unfairness be determined by linking the disclosure with the contents, purpose, and method of other means and the transaction, so it may be read differently depending on whether weight is placed on its application to the particular disclosure or on the comprehensive evaluation of the various circumstances."}], "batch": "a071", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2019Do10309", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "The question is the same: even for electronic information related to the suspected facts, whether it may be used as evidence of guilt if collected without guaranteeing the right to participate."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "The gist is the same: even where objective relevance exists, in the absence of a guarantee of the right to participate there is in principle no admissibility of evidence, and the prosecutor failed to prove the exceptional circumstances."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "Objective relevance, the opportunity to participate, prevention of the arbitrary copying of unrelated information, and the circumstances permitting exceptional use of the evidence overlap."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "It asks what additional circumstances are required in order to exceptionally use as evidence electronic information for which the right to participate was not guaranteed."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "The Holdings deals both with the criteria for determining objective relevance and with the exclusion of evidence and the exception where the right to participate is not guaranteed, so it may be read differently depending on whether the focus is placed on the comprehensiveness of the relevance determination or on the Application to the facts of the legal principle of exclusion of evidence."}], "batch": "a071", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2014Do9691", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "The independent reading also includes exemption from liability for delay in wage payment, but the central question of whether causation between the use of the document and the misunderstanding is required remains the same."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings treat active utilization as use of the document and do not require actual misunderstanding and causation, and the gist concerning exemption for nonpayment of wages is likewise the same."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "Use of the document, causation with the misunderstanding, and the unavoidable circumstances that made payment within the payment due date impossible are the shared central elements."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask the specific acts that distinguish the mere failure to act upon a false financial statement from active utilization."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "The Holdings states the meaning of the act of use and its requirements for establishment, together with the criteria for determining exemption, and the disposition dismisses the final appeal; accordingly, if the focus is placed on the statement of criteria it can be read as states requirements, and if the focus is placed on the conclusion of the case, as Application to the facts."}], "batch": "a072", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2025Do1549", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask whether the right to participate must also be recognized for the person having authority over the custody and disposition of the original where a third party voluntarily submits copied electronic information."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings do not recognize the right to participate on the basis of the identity of the information alone, but recognize an exception where giving the opportunity to participate only to the submitter would be manifestly unfair under special circumstances."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The voluntary submission of identically copied information, the submitter of the copy, and the person having authority over the custody and disposition of the original are the shared central elements."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks the determination of the possibility of submitting the original and of the purpose of excluding participation, as well as the party bearing the burden of proof; the independent reading, however, asks the circumstances warranting an exception even where the purpose of exclusion is not confirmed."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "One may emphasize the application to the case in the in-principle denial of the Holdings and the disposition of reversal and remand, or emphasize the comprehensive consideration of circumstances for determining the exception, but the provided source text does not set out specific factors of consideration."}], "batch": "a072", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2017Do9087", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "The independent reading focuses on the punishment of the accomplice, but the central question of the scope of punishment for the secondary recipient of the information is the same."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings deny punishment as an accomplice where the information was received and used on a separate occasion, and recognize it where one jointly participated in the immediate use at the stage of the initial receipt."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "Receipt of the information on a separate occasion, use after the initial receipt, and joint participation in the immediate use at the stage of the initial receipt overlap substantially."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks the general factual standard for recognizing joint participation, but the independent reading asks whether joint participation is recognized in the proceedings on remand and the scope of Defendant 1's ultimate responsibility."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "The Holdings divides the possibility of punishment according to the time of receipt of the information and the existence of joint participation, and the disposition orders a partial reversal and remand; accordingly, if the conditions for punishment are emphasized it can be read as states requirements, and if the outcome of the handling of the case is emphasized, as Application to the facts."}], "batch": "a072", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "94Do2032", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask the criterion for calculating the amount of gain in fraud involving the obtaining of securities."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings treat the face value of the securities obtained by fraud as the amount of gain."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The obtaining of securities by fraud and the face value are the central elements that overlap."}, "openQuestion": {"same": false, "note": "The first reading asks cases where the actual value is low or the possibility of payment is low, and the independent reading asks cases where the securities are void and rights cannot be exercised."}, "enumNotes": [{"axis": 4, "note": "If the focus is placed on the conclusion applying to the case the holding that the face value is taken as the amount of gain, it can be read as Application to the facts, and if the focus is placed on the general calculation criterion, it can be read as states requirements."}], "batch": "a073", "translatedFrom": "ko"}
{"caseNo": "2018Da210348", "issue": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask the special circumstances required for the denial of intent in an act of execution and the burden of proof thereof."}, "answer": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings distinguish the requirements for a general denial of an act of execution and for a denial of intent, and read that the special circumstances for the denial of intent must be proven by the administrator."}, "factors": {"same": true, "note": "The possibility of identifying the acts and the state of liabilities exceeding assets overlap, and the central element of determining the special circumstances is likewise the same."}, "openQuestion": {"same": true, "note": "Both readings ask the scope of the debtor's specific acts of involvement that warrant recognizing the special circumstances for the denial of intent."}, "enumNotes": [], "batch": "a073", "translatedFrom": "ko"}