Open Decision Ledger · Capital markets & finance
Starting point of the short-term extinctive prescription period for the right to claim damages for unfair trading practices such as market manipulation
Translated from the Korean original. Read the Korean
Supreme Court, Dec. 21, 1993, 93Da30402 (judgment)
Case name: 손해배상(기)
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
When does the short-term extinctive prescription period for the right to claim damages arising from unfair trading practices under the Securities and Exchange Act begin to run, in the sense of the time when the injured party became aware that the violation had occurred?
Holding
The short-term extinctive prescription serves to bring securities trading disputes to a prompt close and thereby promote the stability of the market, so the time when the injured party became aware that the violation had occurred means the time when the injured party actually recognized that an unfair trading practice had taken place. It is sufficient that this recognition reach the level at which an ordinary person could become aware of the existence of the unfair practice.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
피해자가 같은 법 제105조 소정의 불공정거래행위가 있었다는 사실을 현실적으로 인식한 때라고 볼 것이고, 그 인식의 정도는 일반인이라면 불공정행위의 존재를 인식할 수 있는 정도면 족하다.
Unofficial English translation
It should be regarded as the time when the victim actually became aware of the fact that an unfair trading practice prescribed in Article 105 of the same Act had occurred, and the degree of such awareness need only be such that an ordinary person would be able to become aware of the existence of the unfair practice.
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
불공정거래행위가 있었다는 사실을 현실적으로 인식한 때라고 볼 것이고
Unofficial English translation
It should be regarded as the time when one actually became aware of the fact that an unfair trading practice had occurred, and
Factors
- 유가증권거래로 인한 분쟁을 빨리 끝냄으로써 유가증권 시장의 안정을 도모하고자
- 불공정거래행위가 있었다는 사실을 현실적으로 인식한 때
- 일반인이라면 불공정행위의 존재를 인식할 수 있는 정도면 족하다
Unofficial English translation
• With a view to promoting the stability of the securities market by bringing disputes arising from securities transactions to a swift close
• the time when one actually became aware of the fact that an unfair trading practice had occurred
• the degree of such awareness need only be such that an ordinary person would be able to become aware of the existence of the unfair practice
Relation to precedent
States a new standard Read from the decision
그 인식의 정도는 일반인이라면 불공정행위의 존재를 인식할 수 있는 정도면 족하다
Unofficial English translation
the degree of such awareness need only be such that an ordinary person would be able to become aware of the existence of the unfair practice
Decisions referred to
None listed
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Does the short-term extinctive prescription period run even where the injured party was aware of the existence of the unfair trading but could not identify the amount of the loss or the person who caused it?
This reading will be re-examined if the extinctive prescription provisions governing claims for damages for unfair trading under the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act are amended, or if a decision views the degree of awareness at the starting point differently.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
6 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-16
A comparison with an independent reading by another lineage of AI (GPT-6 Astra), which read only the original text without seeing the primary reading, showed agreement on six of the eight axes, while the readings diverged on Axis 6 (Relation to precedent) and Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition).
Axis 6 (Relation to precedent): Primary “States a new standard” vs Independent “Cannot be determined”
In that the text specified both the time and the degree of recognition, it may be read as setting out a new standard, but in that it did not clarify its relation to prior decisions, it may be read as leaving the matter cannot be determined.
그 인식의 정도는 일반인이라면 불공정행위의 존재를 인식할 수 있는 정도면 족하다Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “Does the short-term extinctive prescription period run even where the injured party was aware of the existence of the unfair trading but could not identify the amount of the loss or the person who caused it?” vs Independent “Can the injured party's actual recognition be established merely from having encountered media reports or the fact that an investigation was initiated?”
The primary reading asks about the running of the prescription where the amount of the loss or the person who caused it cannot be identified, whereas the independent reading asks whether actual recognition can be established solely from reports or the initiation of an investigation.
피해자가 같은 법 제105조 소정의 불공정거래행위가 있었다는 사실을 현실적으로 인식한 때라고 볼 것이고, 그 인식의 정도는 일반인이라면 불공정행위의 존재를 인식할 수 있는 정도면 족하다.Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The court below (Seoul High Court, 92Na69795) held that, in view of the fact that when the plaintiff gave a statement as a complainant before the Seoul District Prosecutors' Office on March 7, 1990, he stated in relatively specific detail that the accused persons had caused loss to the plaintiff through unfair trading practices such as stock market manipulation, the plaintiff was aware of the facts of the unfair trading practice at least by that time. It held that the one-year short-term extinctive prescription period had since elapsed, so the plaintiff's right to claim damages had been extinguished by prescription.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court, viewing the holding of the court below as correct in light of the relevant statutes and regulations, finding no misapprehension of legal principles concerning the short-term extinctive prescription, and considering the decisions cited by the plaintiff to be inapposite to this case, dismissed the final appeal.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which damages are sought not under the unfair trading provisions of Article 105 of the Securities and Exchange Act but as a general tort (unlawful act), so that the extinctive prescription under the Civil Act is at issue
- A case in which there are no circumstances, such as a complaint or a statement, by which the injured party specifically disclosed the facts of the unfair trading, making it difficult to pinpoint the time of actual recognition
- A case to which current statutory provisions prescribing a different period of extinctive prescription or a different starting point apply
Record verification notes
Before asserting the completion of the short-term extinctive prescription, one needs to check when the injured party first specifically stated or raised the facts of the unfair trading, and whether the awareness at that time reached the level at which an ordinary person could know of the existence of the unfair practice.
From the official text
Points at issue
증권거래법 제106조 제2항의 규정취지와 그 소멸시효의 기산점이 되는 “위반행위가 있었던 사실을 안 때”의 의미
Unofficial English translation
The purpose of Article 106, paragraph (2) of the Securities and Exchange Act and the meaning of "the time when one became aware of the fact that the violation had occurred," which serves as the starting point of the extinctive prescription
Summary of the holding
증권거래법 제106조 제2항에서 같은 법 제105조 소정의 시세조종 등 불공정거래행위로 인한 손해배상청구권의 소멸시효기간을 단기로 한 취지는 유가증권거래로 인한 분쟁을 빨리 끝냄으로써 유가증권 시장의 안정을 도모하고자 함에 있으므로, 그 소멸시효의 기산점이 되는“위반행위가 있었던 사실을 안 때”라 함은 문언 그대로 피해자가 같은 법 제105조 소정의 불공정거래행위가 있었다는 사실을 현실적으로 인식한 때라고 볼 것이고, 그 인식의 정도는 일반인이라면 불공정행위의 존재를 인식할 수 있는 정도면 족하다.
Order
상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 원고의 부담으로 한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of the final appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Provisions referred to
증권거래법 제106조 제2항, 제105조
Read 2026-10-16 · Cross-read 2026-10-16. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger